Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Computational Risk Analysis

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 108, Issue 5, 2016, Pages

  Ryser, Marc D ^a,c   Worni, Mathias ^c,d   Turner, Elizabeth L ^b,c   Marks, Jeffrey R ^c   Durrett, Rick ^a   Hwang, E Shelley ^c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CAUSE OF DEATH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SPECIFIC CUMULATIVE MORTALITY; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORTALITY RISK; NUMBERS NEEDED TO TREAT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR INVASION; UNCERTAINTY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK FACTOR; UNITED STATES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

ADULT; AGED; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84968792208     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv372     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(20):1546-1554.
2. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2015. Atlanta, GA.
3. Erbas B, Provenzan E, Armes J, et al. The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;97(2):135-144.
4. Ozanne EM, Shieh Y, Barnes J, et al. Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(1):165-173.
5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Stage 0 Breast Cancer (Version 1.2014). http://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/stage-0-breast/index.html. Accessed November 23, 2015.
6. Ganz PA. Quality-of-life issues in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):218-222.
7. Lauzier S, Maunsell E, Levesque P, et al. Psychological distress and physical health in the year after diagnosis of DCIS or invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(3):685-691.
8. Harding C, Pompei F, Burmistrov D, et al. Breast Cancer Screening, Incidence, and Mortality Across US Counties. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1483-1489.
9. Gulati R, Inoue LYT, Gore JL, et al. Individualized Estimates of Overdiagnosis in Screen-Detected Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; In press.
10. Hall SF, Irish J, Groome P, et al. Access, excess, and overdiagnosis: the case for thyroid cancer. Cancer Med. 2014;3(1):154-161.
11. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, et al. Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046-1055.
12. Patz EF, Pinsky P, Gatsonis C, et al. Overdiagnosis in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer. JAMA Int Med. 2014;174(2):269-274.
13. Welch HG, Passow HJ. Quantifying the Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography. JAMA Int Med. 2014;174(3):448-453.
14. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of screening mammography on breast cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(7):679.
15. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Mallinger L, et al. Influence of Study Features and Methods on Overdiagnosis Estimates in Breast and Prostate Cancer Screening. Ann Int Med. 2013;158(11):831-838.
16. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Breast Cancer. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html. Accessed March 23, 2015.
17. Worni M, Akushevich I, Greenup R, et al. Trends in treatment patterns and outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(12):djv263
18. Surveillance E, and End Results (SEER) database of the United States Natial Cancer Institute 1991-2011. http://seer.cancer.gov/. Accessed November 23, 2015.
19. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2013. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed November 23, 2015.
20. Chen HH, Duffy SW, Tabar L. A Markov chain method to estimate the tumour progression rate from preclinical to clinical phase, sensitivity and positive predictive value for mammography in breast cancer screening. Statistician. 1996;45(3):307-317.
21. Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2011;260(1):119-128.
22. Gray RJ. A Class of K-Sample Tests for Comparing the Cumulative Incidence of a Competing Risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16(3):1141-1154.
23. Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 1993;341(8851):973-978.
24. Liu Y, Perez M, Schootman M, et al. Correlates of fear of cancer recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and early invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130(1):165-173.
25. Clarke LD, Plevritis SK, Boer R, et al. A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):96-105.
26. Tan SY, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, et al. The MISCAN-Fadia continuous tumor growth model for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):56-65.
27. Plevritis SK, Sigal BM, Salzman P, et al. A stochastic simulation model of U.S. breast cancer mortality trends from 1975 to 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):86-95.
28. Berry DA, Inoue L, Shen Y, et al. Modeling the impact of treatment and screening on U.S. breast cancer mortality: a Bayesian approach. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):30-6.
29. Lee S, Zelen M. A stochastic model for predicting the mortality of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):79-86.
30. Mandelblatt J, Schechter CB, Lawrence W, et al. The SPECTRUM population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: principles and practice of the model methods. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):47-55.
31. Hanin LG, Miller A, Zorin AV, et al. The University of Rochester model of breast cancer detection and survival. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):66-78.
32. Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, et al. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):37-47.
33. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, et al. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data - Content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40(8):3-18.
34. Yu JB, Gross CP, Wilson LD, et al. NCI SEER Public-Use Data: Applications and Limitations in Oncology Research. Oncology (Williston Park). 2009;23(3):288-295.
35. Halasz LM, Sreedhara M, Chen YH, et al. Improved outcomes of breast-conserving therapy for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(4):e581-e586.
36. Cossetti RJD, Tyldesley SK, Speers CH, et al. Comparison of Breast Cancer Recurrence and Outcome Patterns Between Patients Treated From 1986 to 1992 and From 2004 to 2008. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):65-U106.
37. Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Paik S, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on NSABP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1268-1273.
38. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(1):21-29.
39. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478-488.
40. Sagara Y, MalloryMA, Wong S, et al. Survival Benefit of Breast Surgery for Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Cohort Study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(8):739-745.
41. Wisner DJ, Hwang ES, Chang CB, et al. Features of occult invasion in biopsyproven DCIS at breast MRI. Breast J. 2013;19(6):650-658.