Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:20:40.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Ductal carcinoma in situ: current issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

Michael J. Michell
Affiliation:
King's College Hospital, London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is predominantly an asymptomatic disease detected by mammographic screening. Twenty-one percent of cancers diagnosed by the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) in 2006–7 were non-invasive. The number of DCIS cases diagnosed by the NHSBSP has more than doubled in the last 10 years with 3300 cases diagnosed in 2006–7.

The proportion of screen-detected tumors that are DCIS varies according to the age of the population screened and also the threshold of the film readers regarding the recall of mammographic calcification, calcification being by far the commonest radiological feature of DCIS. Calcifications associated with DCIS can be comedo (rod-shaped or branching), granular (like sugar grains), or round or punctate. The frequency of these types of calcification in Sloane Project DCIS cases is shown in Figure 7.1. About half the DCIS cases manifesting as calcification show comedo calcification while DCIS uncommonly shows only punctate calcification with no granular or comedo forms. Younger women have a higher proportion of DCIS detected at screening compared with older women (Figure 7.2), and women are more likely to have DCIS diagnosed on their first screen than on subsequent screens (Figure 7.3). Younger women are also more likely to have an extensive in situ component associated with an invasive cancer than older women. This is why calcification is a more important mammographic feature of malignancy, the younger the screening population.

Type
Chapter
Information
Breast Cancer , pp. 113 - 126
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

,NHSBSP and Association of Breast Surgeons at BASO. An Audit of screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2006 to March 2007. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2008.
Evans, AJ, Pinder, SE, Wilson, ARM, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. Am J Radiol 1994; 162: 1307–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Barreau, B, Mascarel, I, Feuga, C, et al. Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54: 55–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinkel, HP, Gassel, AM, Tschammler, A. Is the appearance of microcalcifications on mammography useful in predicting histological grade of malignancy in ductal cancer in situ?Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 938–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferranti, C, Coopmans de Yoldi, G, Biganzoli, E, et al. Relationship between age, mammographic features and pathological tumour characteristics in non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slanetz, PJ, Giardino, AA, Oyama, T, et al. Mammographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ does not reliably predict histological subtype. Breast J 2001; 7: 417–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, A, Blanks, R. Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ?Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 1086–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, AJ, Wilson, ARM, Burrell, HC, et al. Mammographic features of Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present on previous mammography. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 644–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, AJ, Pinder, SE, Wilson, ARM, et al. The detection of DCIS at mammographic screening enables the diagnosis of small, grade 3 invasive tumours. Brit J Cancer 1997; 75: 542–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, R, Hendricks, JHCL, Verbeek, ALM, et al. Extent, distribution and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1990; 335: 519–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, A, Clements, K, Maxwell, A, et al. Mammographic bidimensional product: a powerful predictor of successful excision of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Radiol 2007; 62: 787–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, R, Eleti, A. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: is overdiagnosis an issue for radiologists?Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8: 205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, ME, Schuyler, PA, Dupont, WD, et al. The natural history of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy revealed over 30 years of long term follow-up. Cancer 2005; 103: 2481–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverstein, MJ. Predicting local recurrences in Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein, MJ, ed. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast. Baltimore: William and Wilkins, 1997.Google ScholarPubMed
Cadman, B, Ostrowski, J, Quinn, C. invasive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) : comparison of DCIS grade with grade of the invasive component. Breast J 1997; 6: 132–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnall, MC, Evans, AJ, Wilson, ARM, et al. When have mammographic calcifications been adequately sampled at needle core biopsy. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 548–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagnall, MJC, Evans, AJ, Wilson, ARM, et al. Predicting invasion in mammographically detected microcalcification. Clin Radiol 2001; 56: 828–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kettritz, U, Rotter, K, Murauer, M, et al. Stereotactic vacuum biopsy in 2874 patients: A multicenter study. Cancer 2004; 100: 245–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackman, RJ, Burbank, F, Parker, SH, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 2001; 218: 497–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunzio, MC, Evans, AJ, Pinder, SE, et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of prevalent round screen detected invasive breast cancer and pathological prognostic factors. Breast J 1997; 6: 146–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, AJ, Pinder, SE, Burrell, HC, et al. Detecting which invasive cancers at mammographic screening saves lives?J Med Screen 2001; 8: 86–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×