Annals of Surgical Oncology Sign the Guestbook
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.1245/s10434-007-9395-7
Annals of Surgical Oncology 14:2097-2104 (2007)
© 2007 Society of Surgical Oncology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by de Roos, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by de Bock, G. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by de Roos, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by de Bock, G. H.

Original Article

Pathological and Biological Differences Between Screen-Detected and Interval Ductal Carcinoma in situ of the Breast

Marnix A. de Roos, MD1, Bert van der Vegt, MD2, Jaap de Vries, MD, PhD1, Jelle Wesseling, MD, PhD2 and Geertruida H. de Bock, PhD3

1 Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands
2 Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands
3 Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Marnix A. de Roos, MD; E-mail: m.a.j.de.roos{at}chir.umcg.nl

Background: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has risen dramatically with the introduction of screening mammography. The aim was to evaluate differences in pathological and biological characteristics between patients with screen-detected and interval DCIS.

Methods: From January 1992 to December 2001, 128 consecutive patients had been treated for pure DCIS at our institute. From these, 102 had been attending the Dutch breast cancer screening program. Sufficient paraffin-embedded tissue was available in 74 out of the 102 cases to evaluate biological marker expression (Her2/neu, ER, PR, p53 and cyclin D1) on tissue microarrays (TMA group). Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and marker expression between screen-detected and interval patients were evaluated. Screen-detected DCIS was classified as DCIS detected by screening mammography, when the two-year earlier examination failed to reveal an abnormality. Interval patients were classified as patients with DCIS detected within the two-year interval between two subsequent screening rounds.

Results: Screen-detected DCIS was related with linear branching and coarse granular microcalcifications on mammography (p < .001) and with high-grade DCIS according to the Van Nuys classification (p = .025). In univariate analysis, screen-detected DCIS was related with Her2/neu overexpression (odds ratio [OR] = 6.5; 95%CI 1.3–31.0; p = .020), and interval DCIS was associated with low-grade (Van Nuys, OR = 7.3; 95% CI 1.6–33.3; p = .010) and PR positivity (OR = 0.3; 95%CI 0.1–1.0; p = .042). The multivariate analysis displayed an independent relation of Her2/neu overexpression with screen-detected DCIS (OR = 12.8; 95%CI 1.6–104.0; p = .018).

Conclusions: These findings suggest that screen-detected DCIS is biologically more aggressive than interval DCIS and should not be regarded as overdiagnosis.

Key Words: Breast neoplasm • Ductal carcinoma in situ • Screening • Biological markers • Immunohistochemistry






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Surgical Oncology.