We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses to summarize current knowledge on prognostic factors for invasive disease after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Eligible studies assessed risk of invasive recurrence in women primarily diagnosed and treated for DCIS and included at least 10 ipsilateral-invasive breast cancer events and 1 year of follow-up. Quality in Prognosis Studies tool was used for risk of bias assessment. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the average effect size of the prognostic factors. Of 1,781 articles reviewed, 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. Highest risk of bias was attributable to insufficient handling of confounders and poorly described study groups. Six prognostic factors were statistically significant in the meta-analyses: African-American race [pooled estimate (ES), 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15–1.79], premenopausal status (ES, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.20–2.11), detection by palpation (ES, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47–2.29), involved margins (ES, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.14–2.32), high histologic grade (ES, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04–1.77), and high p16 expression (ES, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04–2.19). Six prognostic factors associated with invasive recurrence were identified, whereas many other factors need confirmation in well-designed studies on large patient numbers. Furthermore, we identified frequently occurring biases in studies on invasive recurrence after DCIS. Avoiding these common methodological pitfalls can improve future study designs.

With the introduction of the population-based breast cancer screening program in the wealthy world, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased almost 6-fold (1–6). Although some DCIS will develop into invasive breast cancer, the majority of DCIS, if left untreated, is not destined to progress and thus will never become life-threatening (7). This implies that many women are overtreated, as they are diagnosed with a disease that would not have caused symptoms or death (8). However, we are currently unable to predict which DCIS patients will subsequently develop invasive disease. As a result, almost all women diagnosed with DCIS are nowadays intensively treated with surgical treatment, adjuvant treatment, or both. Many women, who have a low risk to develop subsequent invasive disease, do not benefit from this treatment and thus suffer from overtreatment. Until breast cancer screening programs will include strategies to only detect hazardous disease, we will continue to be faced with large numbers of women diagnosed with low-risk DCIS annually worldwide.

Despite repeated calls for development of prognostic factors for predicting invasive recurrences following DCIS, progress in this field has been slow (9). Numerous prognostic factors have been reported, but none have shown to be of sufficient value for implementation into the clinic (10). This is due to a variety of reasons. For example, sufficiently large, unbiased patient cohorts are lacking to set up validation studies. Current guidelines dictate surgical excision of DCIS when such a lesion is detected. This makes that almost all DCIS is treated and the natural course of DCIS is poorly understood. On top of this, many previous prognostic factor studies have only limited power, given the low event rate in treated patients and the fact that it can take a decade before the presentation of an invasive recurrence. In all this, in-depth molecular analysis of DCIS is challenging due to the minimal quantity and often limited quality of the DNA and RNA extracted from DCIS. As a result, a multitude of factors are now lost in transition.

In this systematic review, we (1) give an overview of previously published studies on prognostic factors for subsequent invasive recurrence after DCIS, (2) assess these studies for potential bias using a standardized risk assessment tool, and (3) identify the factors with the strongest prognostic value that should be considered for validation. With these results, we want to make recommendations for future studies.

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement to guide the conduct and reporting of this review (11).

Eligibility criteria and search strategy

Studies were identified through a systematic search in Pubmed until June 1, 2018, with no language restrictions using the search strategy that can be found in Supplementary Table S1; no limits were set. One reviewer (L.L. Visser) screened titles and abstracts of all articles and assessed their eligibility for the research topic: factors associated with the risk of subsequent ipsilateral-invasive breast cancer (iIBC) in women that were primarily diagnosed and treated for DCIS. Studies not reporting original data, letters to the editor, and commentaries were excluded from the review (nonresearch articles), as were non-English articles (Fig. 1). In addition, we selected for studies including at least 1 year of follow-up. Next, full-text articles were screened for inclusion by two reviewers (L.L. Visser and E.J. Groen) independently. Studies including less than ten subsequent invasive breast cancer events after DCIS treatment were excluded, as were studies that did not focus on subsequent invasive recurrences as primary end-point. Discrepancies were resolved by group discussion with team members. Reference lists of review articles were searched, and any reference with an ambiguous title was included for screening. When multiple studies using the same study population had been published, the study with the largest number of subjects and longest follow-up time was included. If studies used the same study population but reported different prognostic factors, each factor was included separately.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the identification of eligible articles in the systematic literature review. Note that 1,781 articles were identified in the Pubmed database, of which 40 met our inclusion criteria. Reference lists of review articles were searched, and any reference with an ambiguous title was included for screening (arrows with dotted lines).

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the identification of eligible articles in the systematic literature review. Note that 1,781 articles were identified in the Pubmed database, of which 40 met our inclusion criteria. Reference lists of review articles were searched, and any reference with an ambiguous title was included for screening (arrows with dotted lines).

Close modal

Following the definition of our search strategy, only tumor-related factors and age, race and/or ethnicity, detection method, or menopausal status were included in this systematic review. Incidentally, factors such as treatment, family history of breast cancer, body mass index, or lifestyle factors were described in the included studies, but these factors were not included in the analyses.

Data extraction and definitions

During the full-text screening phase, the following data were extracted: source of the study population, single- or multi-center study, study design, number of DCIS patients, number of iIBC events, period of recruitment, median follow-up time in years, received treatment for DCIS, the identified prognostic factors, the risk estimates—i.e., HR or OR with 95% confidence interval (CI), adjustments, and the statistical method used.

Quality assessment

Next, each study was evaluated independently by two reviewers (L.L. Visser and E.J. Groen) using the Quality in Prognosis Study (QUIPS) tool developed by Hayden and colleagues (12, 13). Details on the tool used for the assessment are shown in Supplementary Table S2. In brief, domains assessed for bias were study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement, end-point definition, confounding measurement and handling, and statistical analysis and reporting. Each domain was assessed with the help of three to six prompting questions of which several were modified for the purpose of this study. The assessment for each study was completed by assigning a grade of low, moderate, or high risk of bias to each domain. Any discrepancy in grading was discussed, and if no consensus was reached, a third reviewer (M.K. Schmidt) was consulted. For consistence of assessment, we tested the QUIPS instrument between the two reviewers (L.L. Visser and E.J. Groen) before rating the included studies. The kappa for interobserver agreement was 0.9 (SE of 0.2). In addition, because we found DCIS treatment to be the most strongly confounding variable in previous studies, we explicitly specified this confounder in the QUIPS tool. We classified studies as “high quality (HQ) studies” if they were properly designed and well conducted: these studies were not allowed to have high risk of bias in any of the QUIPS domains and should account for the confounding effect of treatment. Prognostic factors identified in these HQ studies were considered as factors with the strongest predictive value.

Statistical analysis

To estimate the average effect size of the prognostic factors, meta-analyses were performed using the univariate effect sizes reported by the different studies; this was done for all factors reported by more than 1 HQ study. For the absolute effect size difference between studies, pooled estimates were calculated using weighting based on the number of included iIBC events per study [weight per study (%) = (n of DCIS patients with subsequent iIBC in that specific study/total number of DCIS patients with subsequent iIBC of all studies which were used to form the pooled estimate) × 100]. In a few articles, effect sizes were not reported or used categories were not comparable with the other studies assessing that specific prognostic factor; hence, these were excluded from the analysis. For the reported effect sizes, pooled estimates were visualized and summarized using a forest plot, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Random effect analysis (14).

A funnel plot was used to assess possible publication bias (15, 16). Because there were only a few estimates/studies for each of the factors, it was only possible to do this for all factors combined. χ2 tests were performed to compare year of publication and risk of bias per QUIPS domain. For this, studies were divided at the median into publication years 1998–2011 and 2012–2018 and compared the risk of bias per domain. P values ≤ 0.05 (2-sided test) were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were done using Stata/SE (version 13.1, Statacorp).

Until June 2018, 1,781 papers were identified in the Pubmed database, of which 40 met our inclusion criteria (Fig. 1; refs. 17–56). This low number of included studies was because only a few studies specifically focused on iIBC recurrence after DCIS. Many studies did not specify for the type of recurrence, in situ or invasive, and thus were excluded (n = 80).

Study and patient characteristics

Study and patient characteristics of the included studies can be found in Table 1. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 52 to 37,692 patients, and mean follow-up time ranged from 3.2 to 15.8 years. Seven studies included DCIS patients who also had an adjacent invasive component or microinvasion, and seven other studies explicitly excluded these patients. Furthermore, 14 studies included patients from all treatment modalities, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone, BCS + radiotherapy (RT)/hormonal therapy (HT), and mastectomy, whereas 16 other studies included only BCS-treated patients (±RT). Ten studies included patients who underwent one treatment modality: BCS+RT (n = 1) and BCS alone (n = 9).

Table 1.

Study and patient characteristics of included articles

ReferenceFirst author, yearSource populationRCT or ObsSingle- or multi-centerStudy designNumber, DCIS patientsNumber, iIBC eventsPeriodMean follow-up (years)Adjacent invasion included?Treatment
17 Rakovitch, 2018 HQ ECOG E5194, Ontario DCIS Cohort RCTa, Obs Multi Cohort 773 65 1994–2003 9.4 N/a BCS alone 
18 Visser, 2018 HQ Netherlands Cancer Registry Obs Multi Case–control 674 200 1989–2004 12.0 No BCS alone 
19 Pruneri, 2017  European Institute of Oncology Obs Single Cohort 1,488 136 1997–2008 8.2 N/a All modalities 
20 Molinaro, 2016 HQ SEER Northern California Obs Multi Case–control 1,492 167 1983–1996 12.6 No BCS alone 
21 Borgquist, 2015  Uppland, Västmanland (Sweden) Obs Multi Cohort 324 46 1986–2004 15.3 N/a All modalities 
22 Williams, 2015  DCIS I, IBIS II, IRESSA trial, ERISAC, lapatinib DCIS RCT Multi Cohort 314 22 1990–2010 5.0 Yes All modalities 
23 Curigliano, 2015 HQ European Institute of Oncology Obs Single Cohort 1,667 201 1996–2008 7.6 N/a All modalities 
24 Cheung, 2014 HQ West Midlands Cancer Registry Obs Multi Cohort 3,930 297 1988–2008 N/a N/a All modalities 
25 Generali, 2014  John Radcliffe Hospital, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Obs Multi Cohort 174 25 N/a 12.1 N/a All modalities 
26 Kong, 2014 HQ Ontario Cancer Registry Obs Multi Cohort 1,607 148 1994–2003 10 No BCS+RT 
27 v Bockstal, 2013  Ghent University Hospital Obs Single Cohort 64 12 1991–2003 9.3 Yes All modalities 
28 Solin, 2013  ECOG E5194 RCTa Multi Cohort 327 20 1997–2002 8.8 N/a BCS ± HT 
29 Donker, 2013  EORTC RCT Multi Cohort 1,010 123 1986–1996 15.8 No BCS ± RT 
30 Collins, 2013 HQ KPNC, KPSC, HPHC Obs Multi Case–control 619 225 1990–2001 4.8 N/a BCS ± RT 
31 Holmberg, 2013 HQ SweDCIS RCT Multi Case–control 1,046 N/a N/a N/a Yes BCS ± RT 
32 Knudsen, 2012  Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Obs Single Cohort 236 27 1978–2008 9.0 No BCS alone 
33 Alvarado, 2012  University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Obs Single Cohort 2,037 16 1996–2009 5.2 N/a All modalities 
34 Rakovitch, 2012 HQ Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 213 21 1982–2000 7.7 N/a BCS ± RT 
35 Han, 2012 HQ Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 180 22 1987–2000 7.8 Yes BCS ± RT 
36 Witkiewicz, 2011  Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Obs Single Cohortb 126 16 N/a N/a N/a BCS alone 
37 Wapnir, 2011  NSABP B-17, NSABP B-24 RCT Multi Cohort 2,612 263 1985–1994 14.7 N/a BCS±RT ±HT 
38 Falk, 2011  Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme Obs Multi Cohort 3,046 96 1993–2007 5.2 No All modalities 
39 Tunon-de-Lara, 2010  Institut Bergonie Obs Single Cohort 812 47 1971–2001 9.8 No All modalities 
40 Zhou, 2010  Uppland, Västmanland (Sweden) Obs Multi Cohort 392 34 1986–2004 10.2 N/a All modalities 
41 Pinder, 2010  UKCCR/ANZ RCT Multi Cohort 1,224 55 1990–1998 N/a Yes BCS ± RT ± HT 
42 Kerlikowske, 2010 HQ SEER Northern California Obs Multi Case–control 329 72 1983–1994 8.2 No BCS alone 
43 Witkiewicz, 2009  Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Obs Single Cohortb 78 11 N/a 12.2 N/a BCS alone 
44 Nofech-Mozes, 2008  Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 133 21 1982–2000 8.9 Yes BCS alone 
45 Rakovitch, 2007  Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 615 36 1982–2000 5.9 Yes BCS ± RT 
46 Ringberg, 2007 HQ SweDCIS RCT Multi Case–control 1,046 155 1987–1999 5.2 N/a BCS ± RT 
47 Hwang, 2007 HQ Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Obs Multi Cohort 3,274 83 1993–2005 3.2 No All modalities 
48 Smith, 2006 HQ SEER Obs Multi Cohort 3,409 107 1992–1999 5.0 N/a BCS ± RT 
49 Li, 2006 HQ SEER Obs Multi Cohort 37,692 1,504 1988–2002 N/a N/a BCS ± RT 
50 Bijker, 2006  EORTC RCT Multi Cohort 1,010 108 1986–1996 10.5 No BCS ± RT 
51 Warren, 2005  SEER Obs Multi Cohort 1,103 62 1991–1992 7.5 No BCS ± RT 
52 Kerlikowske, 2003 HQ SEER Northern California Obs Multi Cohort 1,036 71 1983–1994 6.5 No BCS alone 
53 Teo, 2003  Merseyside (UK) Obs Multi Case—control 52 12 1989–1999 5.3 No All modalities 
54 Bijker, 2001 HQ EORTC RCT Multi Cohort 863 66 1986–1996 5.4 No BCS ± RT 
55 Wärnberg, 2001  Swedish Cancer Registry Obs Multi Case–control 570 70 1960–1996 10 No All modalities 
56 Habel, 1998  SEER Washington Obs Multi Cohort 709 55 1980–1992 5.2 N/a BCS ± RT 
ReferenceFirst author, yearSource populationRCT or ObsSingle- or multi-centerStudy designNumber, DCIS patientsNumber, iIBC eventsPeriodMean follow-up (years)Adjacent invasion included?Treatment
17 Rakovitch, 2018 HQ ECOG E5194, Ontario DCIS Cohort RCTa, Obs Multi Cohort 773 65 1994–2003 9.4 N/a BCS alone 
18 Visser, 2018 HQ Netherlands Cancer Registry Obs Multi Case–control 674 200 1989–2004 12.0 No BCS alone 
19 Pruneri, 2017  European Institute of Oncology Obs Single Cohort 1,488 136 1997–2008 8.2 N/a All modalities 
20 Molinaro, 2016 HQ SEER Northern California Obs Multi Case–control 1,492 167 1983–1996 12.6 No BCS alone 
21 Borgquist, 2015  Uppland, Västmanland (Sweden) Obs Multi Cohort 324 46 1986–2004 15.3 N/a All modalities 
22 Williams, 2015  DCIS I, IBIS II, IRESSA trial, ERISAC, lapatinib DCIS RCT Multi Cohort 314 22 1990–2010 5.0 Yes All modalities 
23 Curigliano, 2015 HQ European Institute of Oncology Obs Single Cohort 1,667 201 1996–2008 7.6 N/a All modalities 
24 Cheung, 2014 HQ West Midlands Cancer Registry Obs Multi Cohort 3,930 297 1988–2008 N/a N/a All modalities 
25 Generali, 2014  John Radcliffe Hospital, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Obs Multi Cohort 174 25 N/a 12.1 N/a All modalities 
26 Kong, 2014 HQ Ontario Cancer Registry Obs Multi Cohort 1,607 148 1994–2003 10 No BCS+RT 
27 v Bockstal, 2013  Ghent University Hospital Obs Single Cohort 64 12 1991–2003 9.3 Yes All modalities 
28 Solin, 2013  ECOG E5194 RCTa Multi Cohort 327 20 1997–2002 8.8 N/a BCS ± HT 
29 Donker, 2013  EORTC RCT Multi Cohort 1,010 123 1986–1996 15.8 No BCS ± RT 
30 Collins, 2013 HQ KPNC, KPSC, HPHC Obs Multi Case–control 619 225 1990–2001 4.8 N/a BCS ± RT 
31 Holmberg, 2013 HQ SweDCIS RCT Multi Case–control 1,046 N/a N/a N/a Yes BCS ± RT 
32 Knudsen, 2012  Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Obs Single Cohort 236 27 1978–2008 9.0 No BCS alone 
33 Alvarado, 2012  University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Obs Single Cohort 2,037 16 1996–2009 5.2 N/a All modalities 
34 Rakovitch, 2012 HQ Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 213 21 1982–2000 7.7 N/a BCS ± RT 
35 Han, 2012 HQ Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 180 22 1987–2000 7.8 Yes BCS ± RT 
36 Witkiewicz, 2011  Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Obs Single Cohortb 126 16 N/a N/a N/a BCS alone 
37 Wapnir, 2011  NSABP B-17, NSABP B-24 RCT Multi Cohort 2,612 263 1985–1994 14.7 N/a BCS±RT ±HT 
38 Falk, 2011  Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme Obs Multi Cohort 3,046 96 1993–2007 5.2 No All modalities 
39 Tunon-de-Lara, 2010  Institut Bergonie Obs Single Cohort 812 47 1971–2001 9.8 No All modalities 
40 Zhou, 2010  Uppland, Västmanland (Sweden) Obs Multi Cohort 392 34 1986–2004 10.2 N/a All modalities 
41 Pinder, 2010  UKCCR/ANZ RCT Multi Cohort 1,224 55 1990–1998 N/a Yes BCS ± RT ± HT 
42 Kerlikowske, 2010 HQ SEER Northern California Obs Multi Case–control 329 72 1983–1994 8.2 No BCS alone 
43 Witkiewicz, 2009  Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Obs Single Cohortb 78 11 N/a 12.2 N/a BCS alone 
44 Nofech-Mozes, 2008  Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 133 21 1982–2000 8.9 Yes BCS alone 
45 Rakovitch, 2007  Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Obs Single Cohort 615 36 1982–2000 5.9 Yes BCS ± RT 
46 Ringberg, 2007 HQ SweDCIS RCT Multi Case–control 1,046 155 1987–1999 5.2 N/a BCS ± RT 
47 Hwang, 2007 HQ Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Obs Multi Cohort 3,274 83 1993–2005 3.2 No All modalities 
48 Smith, 2006 HQ SEER Obs Multi Cohort 3,409 107 1992–1999 5.0 N/a BCS ± RT 
49 Li, 2006 HQ SEER Obs Multi Cohort 37,692 1,504 1988–2002 N/a N/a BCS ± RT 
50 Bijker, 2006  EORTC RCT Multi Cohort 1,010 108 1986–1996 10.5 No BCS ± RT 
51 Warren, 2005  SEER Obs Multi Cohort 1,103 62 1991–1992 7.5 No BCS ± RT 
52 Kerlikowske, 2003 HQ SEER Northern California Obs Multi Cohort 1,036 71 1983–1994 6.5 No BCS alone 
53 Teo, 2003  Merseyside (UK) Obs Multi Case—control 52 12 1989–1999 5.3 No All modalities 
54 Bijker, 2001 HQ EORTC RCT Multi Cohort 863 66 1986–1996 5.4 No BCS ± RT 
55 Wärnberg, 2001  Swedish Cancer Registry Obs Multi Case–control 570 70 1960–1996 10 No All modalities 
56 Habel, 1998  SEER Washington Obs Multi Cohort 709 55 1980–1992 5.2 N/a BCS ± RT 

NOTE: “All modalities” consistent of BCS alone, BCS+RT/HT, and mastectomy.

Abbreviations: HPHC, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care; KPNC, Kaiser Permanente Northern California; KPSC, Kaiser Permanente Southern California; N/a, data not available; Obs, observational study; RCT, randomized clinical trial.

aNonrandomized clinical trial.

bSelection of cohort used in analysis.

For all studies, data were collected retrospectively, regarding patients diagnosed with DCIS between 1960 and 2010. For this, hospital registries, national registries, or data from clinical trials were used. Both cohort (80%) and case-control designs (20%) were used. Seventy percent were multi-center studies, and 30% involved only a single center.

Assessment of quality of prognosis studies (QUIPS)

We assessed six QUIPS domains: study participation, study attrition, end-point definition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and handling, and statistical analysis and reporting (Supplementary Table S2). A high or moderate risk of bias was identified in at least one domain in 39 of the 40 studies, with 22 studies having a high risk of bias in at least one domain (Table 2). The domains with the highest risk of bias were confounding measurement and handling and study participation, which had a high risk of bias in 16 and 8 of the 40 studies, respectively.

Table 2.

Risk of bias per QUIPS domain for each individual study

Risk of bias per QUIPS domain for each individual study
Risk of bias per QUIPS domain for each individual study

In total, 11 of the 40 studies (27.5%) used the study design to account for potential confounding through either matching, stratification, or initial assembly of comparable groups. Eighteen of the 40 studies (45.0%) accounted for confounding effect in the analysis stage. The remaining 11 studies (27.5%) did not perform adjustments for confounding. The reasons for the high-risk-of-bias ratings in the study participation domain were incomplete description of inclusion and exclusion criteria and/or poorly described baseline characteristics of the study group. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed in all studies but two. One of these two studies was assessed as having a high risk of bias in the statistical analysis domain, because the analysis used was not appropriate for the design of the study.

None of the studies had a high risk of bias in the domains end-point definition and prognostic factor measurement.

Finally, we assessed the effect of time period of publication on risk of bias. We divided the studies at the median into publication years 1998–2011 and 2012–2018 and compared the risk of bias per domain. There was no significant difference in any of the study domains.

Exploring publication bias

Supplementary Fig. S1 shows the funnel plot that was used to assess publication bias by including all prognostic factors together in one plot. The funnel plot shows that both significant and nonsignificant factors related to outcome were published. As such, we conclude that there was no evidence for publication bias.

Identification of the HQ studies and their reported prognostic factors

We filtered for the studies without a high risk of bias in any of the QUIPS domains and selected only those studies that accounted for the confounding effect of treatment (HQ studies). Only 17 studies met these criteria (Tables 1 and 2). All together, these 17 HQ studies assessed 26 different factors and identified 10 different potential prognostic factors, which were assessed in Y HQ studies and reported to have statistically significant association with subsequent invasive breast cancer in X of these studies (X/Y): high histologic grade (1/7), young age at DCIS diagnosis (4/6), solid DCIS architecture (2/6), detection by palpation (2/4), premenopausal status (2/2), African-American race (1/2), presence of calcification (1/2), high p16 expression (1/2), high COX-2 expression (1/2), and presence of periductal fibrosis (1/1; Table 3; Supplementary Table S3). None of the studies assessed all prognostic factors. Notably, studies examining the same prognostic factor often showed inconsistent results (Supplementary Table S3).

Table 3.

List of factors that were assessed in the HQ studies

Number of HQ studies:
FactorAssessed factorStatistical significant finding
Age at DCIS diagnosis 
Calcification 
Calgranulin status 
COX-2 status 
Cyclin D1 status 
DCIS architecture 
Detection method 
ER status 
Focality 
Grade, histologic 
HER2 status 
Ki67 status 
Lesion size 
Margin status 
Menopausal status 
Necrosis 
p16 status 
p21 status 
p53 status 
Periductal fibrosis 
Periductal lymphocytes 
PR status 
Psoriasin status 
Race and/or ethnicity 
Subtypes, intrinsic 
Year of DCIS diagnosis 
Number of HQ studies:
FactorAssessed factorStatistical significant finding
Age at DCIS diagnosis 
Calcification 
Calgranulin status 
COX-2 status 
Cyclin D1 status 
DCIS architecture 
Detection method 
ER status 
Focality 
Grade, histologic 
HER2 status 
Ki67 status 
Lesion size 
Margin status 
Menopausal status 
Necrosis 
p16 status 
p21 status 
p53 status 
Periductal fibrosis 
Periductal lymphocytes 
PR status 
Psoriasin status 
Race and/or ethnicity 
Subtypes, intrinsic 
Year of DCIS diagnosis 

Meta-analyses

Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the average effect size of the prognostic factors; this was done for all factors reported by more than 1 HQ study, regardless of their statistically significance (Fig. 2; Supplementary Fig. S2). Most of the factors seemed to point to a higher relative risk of subsequent iIBC for DCIS patients, although effects were generally small. Six prognostic factors had a statistically significant pooled estimate: African-American race [pooled estimate (ES), 1.43; 95% CI, 1.15–1.79], premenopausal status (ES, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.20–2.11), detection by palpation (ES, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47–2.29), involved margins (ES, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.14–2.32), high histologic grade (poorly differentiated; ES, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04–1.77), and high p16 expression (ES, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04–2.19). For these six prognostic factors, the heterogeneity test demonstrated consistency of the estimates reported in the included studies. Although histologic grade showed a trend toward heterogeneity (P = 0.09), none of the studies reported all these six prognostic factors. Meta-analyses could not be performed for the factors age at diagnosis, DCIS architecture, lesion size, and year of DCIS diagnosis because the categories used in the studies were not comparable.

Figure 2.

Pooled estimates and heterogeneity analysis of prognostic factors reported in more than one HQ study. Pooled estimates were calculated using weighting based on the number of included iIBC events per study [weight per study (%) = (n of DCIS patients with subsequent iIBC in that specific study/total number of DCIS patients with subsequent iIBC of all studies which are used to form the pooled estimate) × 100]. Heterogeneity was assessed using random effect (DerSimonian and Laird) analyses. The column “studies signif/total” represents the number of HQ studies that reported a statistical significant association for the prognostic factor and subsequent iIBC risk and the total number of HQ studies that assessed the prognostic factor. *, factors used in routine clinical practice for DCIS; **, number of studies included in the analysis: A few studies did not report effect sizes or used categories that were not comparable with the other studies assessing that specific prognostic factor; hence, these studies were excluded from the analysis. AA, African American.

Figure 2.

Pooled estimates and heterogeneity analysis of prognostic factors reported in more than one HQ study. Pooled estimates were calculated using weighting based on the number of included iIBC events per study [weight per study (%) = (n of DCIS patients with subsequent iIBC in that specific study/total number of DCIS patients with subsequent iIBC of all studies which are used to form the pooled estimate) × 100]. Heterogeneity was assessed using random effect (DerSimonian and Laird) analyses. The column “studies signif/total” represents the number of HQ studies that reported a statistical significant association for the prognostic factor and subsequent iIBC risk and the total number of HQ studies that assessed the prognostic factor. *, factors used in routine clinical practice for DCIS; **, number of studies included in the analysis: A few studies did not report effect sizes or used categories that were not comparable with the other studies assessing that specific prognostic factor; hence, these studies were excluded from the analysis. AA, African American.

Close modal

The purpose of this review was 2-fold. First, we aimed to identify prognostic factors with statistically significant association with subsequent iIBC that deserve validation. We identified 17 HQ studies, assessing 26 factors, of which 6 prognostic factors were statistically significantly associated with subsequent iIBC risk in the meta-analyses: African-American race, premenopausal status, detection by palpation, involved margins, high histologic grade (poorly differentiated), and high p16 expression. Second, we aimed to give insight into bias that was frequently introduced in previously published prognostic factor studies for subsequent iIBC after preceding DCIS. Highest risk of bias in the studies was attributable to insufficient measurement and handling of confounders and poorly described study groups.

The association between the six unfavorable prognostic factors and subsequent iIBC risk can be biologically explained. When DCIS has involved margins, this indicates that residual tumor cells are left behind at the resection site. These cells can subsequently grow out and form a recurrence, which could be invasive disease. Premenopausal status and African-American race are known independent predictors of a worse breast cancer outcome (57, 58). Furthermore, literature has shown that DCIS detected by palpation would be more aggressive than screening-detected DCIS, as these DCIS lesions are more often ER negative and HER2 positive (59). The same holds true for DCIS lesions of high histologic grade (60). Lastly, p16 mediates cell-cycle arrest through the p16/Rb signaling pathway. Disruption of the p16/Rb signaling pathway is an oncogenic event and results in sustained cellular proliferation, which can lead to DCIS progression to iIBC (61).

Whether or not to use histologic grade as a prognostic marker for invasive recurrence after DCIS is a matter of debate. In our meta-analysis, histologic grade showed a trend toward heterogeneity, which is likely caused by differences in histologic classification methods (41, 62–64). Moreover, all methods suffer from reproducibility problems causing high interobserver variability (65, 66).

Zhang and colleagues carried out the first meta-analysis specifically focusing on ipsilateral invasive recurrence after DCIS (67). In line with our study, they found that positive margins and non–screening-detected lesions were associated with a higher risk of iIBC after DCIS. However, they included only 18 studies. Although Zhang and colleagues performed bias assessment of the included articles, using a different method than we did, they did not report on the results from the bias assessment, making it likely that also studies with a high risk of bias were included in their meta-analyses. In addition to the study by Zhang and colleagues, two other meta-analyses have been published, although focusing on ipsilateral tumor recurrence (both in situ and invasive) preceding DCIS. Boyages and colleagues found that the presence of necrosis, involved margin, high histologic grade, and large tumor size were predictive of ipsilateral recurrence for DCIS (68). In addition to these factors, Wang and colleagues reported that multifocality and symptomatic DCIS were also associated with high risk of ipsilateral breast recurrence (69). In our study, multifocality was not assessed, and meta-analyses of necrosis, histologic grade, and tumor size yielded nonstatistically significant results. However, previous literature has indicated that risk factors for subsequent invasive disease and recurrence of DCIS may not be identical; thus, combining in situ recurrence and invasive recurrence into a single group may obscure the real risk factors for invasive disease after DCIS (52). This could explain the inconsistent meta-analysis results of our study and the studies mentioned above and highlights the need to specify for the type of recurrence when performing a prognostic factor study for DCIS.

Next to the prognostic factors we found to be statistically significant in the meta-analyses, many other factors were identified in the included studies. This variability could firstly be explained by underreporting of the prognostic factors, because none of the studies assessed all prognostic factors. Secondly, the presence of unadjusted confounding could also play a role in this, because this makes that any risk estimate could be misleading. The most important confounder in the studies was DCIS treatment: This variable was risk factors for subsequent iIBC among DCIS patients while at the same time associated with the prognostic factors of interest (70). Confounding can be accounted for at the design stage of the study (e.g., by matching or randomization) and/or at the analysis stage, given the confounders have been measured properly. Twenty-nine included studies properly adjusted for confounding effect. Remarkably, 11 studies did not include any adjustments at all.

All patients included in prognostic factor studies for DCIS are treated. As most studies did not include genomic characterization, we could not confirm whether the invasive recurrences studied were indeed all clonally related to the primary DCIS lesion. As they might also be second primary tumors, the prognostic factors identified could also be risk factors for any second invasive breast event after DCIS. In addition, some DCIS cases developed early recurrences (within 4 months), questioning if these were not missed invasive cancers. As we know that the rate of missed invasive disease at DCIS diagnosis is 11% to 25%, it is unlikely that this will be a major percentage of the recurrences reported (71–74).

High risk of bias attributed to selective study participation was mostly because the source of patient (clinical and histopathologic) information was often not mentioned or not properly described. The same holds true for details on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Incomplete description of these criteria can bias the estimates in an uncertain direction. In addition, baseline characteristics were often not adequately described and should at least comprise the factors that are reported during routine diagnosis and treatment, such as age at diagnosis, histologic grade, clinical presentation, received treatment for DCIS, lesion size, and margin status. Furthermore, some studies included DCIS patients with an adjacent invasive component or microinvasion. Prognostic factor studies for DCIS are aiming to find predictors of subsequent invasive diseases. Yet, DCIS lesion with a (micro)invasive component is already invasive disease. Including these lesions in the analysis is not appropriate, because this may obscure the risk factors for subsequent iIBC after DCIS. Thus, DCIS with an adjacent invasive component or microinvasion should be excluded from such a study. The same holds true for the inclusion of patients treated by mastectomy. Because the recurrence risk after mastectomy is negligible, inclusion of these patients into a study assessing risk of invasive recurrence after DCIS is likely to be less adequate. Of note, two HQ studies, Cheung and colleagues and Curigliano and colleagues, included a substantial proportion of patients treated with mastectomy. Despite this, these studies were still considered as HQ studies following our predefined criteria. Exclusion of these two studies from the meta-analyses did not substantially alter the results (data not shown).

Although study attrition did not introduce a high risk of bias, it was a recurrent problem. Next to the proportion of the initial patient group available for analysis at the end of the study, it is also important to report the reasons why certain patients were not included in the analysis. If the reason for exclusion was related to the study's end-point (missingness not at random), this can substantially affect risk estimates, either toward unity or away from it. Only a few studies included in this review explored differences between drop-outs and non–drop-outs. This could contribute to the wide variations in prognostic factors identified and nonreproducibility of prognostic factors between studies. Most of the factors identified were associated with small effect sizes, and the clinical relevance of these factors therefore is questionable.

Many studies included in this systematic review are retrospective studies that used hospital registries or national registries as a data source, and working with these data is a challenge. Registry-based studies often depend on the size, quality, completeness of relevant variables, and features of the registry on which the study is based (75). Furthermore, there are worries about data quality related to end-point measures in registries, and end-point information such as migration abroad or death from other causes is not always included (76, 77). This is a general concern regarding registry-based studies which can only be solved by improving source data. The remainder of the studies used clinical trial data as data source. Clinical trials have the advantage in finding prognostic factors as patient groups are often randomized and thus the analysis does not suffer from confounding. Yet, as clinical trials may focus on highly selected patient groups (e.g., specific age range, lesion size range, etc.), generalizability of trial results might be limited.

This systematic review has several strengths. First, to our knowledge, we are the first to perform bias assessment on prognostic factor studies for DCIS. Second, using the QUIPS tool, we were able to provide insight into the most frequently occurring biases in prognostic factor studies in a standardized way. This enabled us to subsequently identify the studies including the least bias, in order to identify factors with the strongest predictive value regarding subsequent iIBC risk after DCIS.

Our study also has some limitations. First, use of the QUIPS tool still involved subjective judgment in assigning a score for each of the six domains, although we minimized this by assessing the included studies in a consistent manner using specific criteria for each domain and by assigning two independent assessors. The interobserver kappa value showed an excellent consistency between the two assessors. Second, because the prognostic factors examined differed widely among the studies, the prognostic evidence of the factors obviously only relied on a few publications available: but all studies included in the analysis were HQ studies. Third, studies that we classified as HQ were not allowed to have high risk of bias in any of the QUIPS domains. However, studies with high risk of bias in at least one QUIPS domain might be as good (or bad) as studies with moderate risk of bias in three domains.

In conclusion, measurement and evaluation of prognostic factors have the potential to improve the clinical management of women diagnosed with DCIS. Nonetheless, studies assessing these factors should be of sufficient rigor to reach a high level of specificity and sensitivity. We highly recommend the six prognostic factors for independent validation, although with a critical note added to the use of histologic grade as a prognostic factor. Next to this, we encourage researchers to remain searching for other factors. Also, we could not assess all reported prognostic factors in our meta-analyses, as some were only assessed by a single study. Thus, the potential of these factors remains unproven, but could be confirmed in future studies. In addition, we showed that not accounting for the confounding effect of DCIS treatment is the main cause of study bias, indicating that is of utmost importance to correct for this. Furthermore, we encourage researchers to describe their used patient groups in high detail. Lastly, in the analysis stage, the type of recurrence should be specified: in situ or invasive. This, because invasive recurrences increase a patient's risk of dying from breast cancer and thus should be an (additional) important end-point of interest in prognostic factor studies of DCIS. These insights and the use of for example the STROBE guidelines (78) can help researchers improve their study designs and avoid common methodological pitfalls.

This systematic review underlines the high need of well-designed studies with large patient numbers that undergo independent validation (79). Currently, initiatives have been established to make this happen and translate promising prognostic factors to clinical practice. One of these initiatives is the PRECISION (PREvent ductal Carcinoma In Situ Invasive Overtreatment Now) initiative, funded by Cancer Research UK and the Dutch Cancer Society (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/funding-for-researchers/how-we-deliver-research/grand-challenge-award/funded-teams-wesseling; ref. 80). In addition, noninferiority trials, like LORD, LORIS, and COMET, have been initiated and will be important in prospective validation of prognostic factors (81–83). We hope our review will ultimately contribute to the identification of reliable and clinically meaningful prognostic factors for DCIS in the near future. This may help us to distinguish indolent from potentially hazardous DCIS, thereby putting an end to the current overtreatment dilemma.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

This work was jointly funded by Cancer Research UK and the Dutch Cancer Society (grant number C38317/A24043, to J. Wesseling).

1.
Ernster
VL
,
Ballard-Barbash
R
,
Barlow
WE
,
Zheng
Y
,
Weaver
DL
,
Cutter
G
, et al
Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2002
;
94
:
1546
54
.
2.
Netherlands
Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL)
. 
DCIS incidence trends over time
.
Utrecht, the Netherlands:
Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization
.
3.
Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland
. 
DCIS incidence trends over time
.
Edinburgh, Scotland
:
Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland
.
4.
Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit
. 
DCIS incidence trends over time
.
Wales
:
Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit
.
5.
Office for National Statistics
. 
DCIS incidence trends over time
.
Newport, United Kingdom
:
Office for National Statistics
.
6.
Howlader
N
,
Noone
AM
,
Krapcho
M
,
Miller
D
,
Bishop
K
,
Kosary
CL
, et al
SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2014
.
Bethesda, MD:
National Cancer Institute
.
7.
Lopez-Garcia
MA
,
Geyer
FC
,
Lacroix-Triki
M
,
Marchió
C
,
Reis-Filho
JS
. 
Breast cancer precursors revisited: molecular features and progression pathways
.
Histopathology
2010
;
57
:
171
92
.
8.
Welch
HG
,
Black
WC
. 
Overdiagnosis in cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2010
;
102
:
605
13
.
9.
Bartlett
JM
,
Nofech-Moses
S
,
Rakovitch
E
. 
Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: can biomarkers improve current management?
Clin Chem
2014
;
60
:
60
7
.
10.
Lari
SA
,
Kuerer
HM
. 
Biological markers in DCIS and risk of breast recurrence: a systematic review
.
J Cancer
2011
;
2
:
232
61
.
11.
Liberati
A
,
Altman
DG
,
Tetzlaff
J
,
Mulrow
C
,
Gøtzsche
PC
,
Ioannidis
JP
, et al
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
.
BMJ
2009
;
339
.
12.
Hayden
JA
,
Côté
P
,
Bombardier
C
. 
Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews
.
Ann Intern Med
2006
;
144
:
427
37
.
13.
Hayden
JA
,
Van Der Windt
DA
,
Cartwright
JL
,
Co
P
. 
Research and reporting methods annals of internal medicine assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors
.
Ann Intern Med
2013
;
144
:
427
37
.
14.
DerSimonian
R
,
Laird
N
. 
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
.
Control Clin Trials
1986
;
7
:
177
88
.
15.
Sterne
JAC
,
Egger
M
,
Smith
GD
. 
Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
.
BMJ
2001
;
323
:
101
5
.
16.
Sterne
JAC
,
Egger
M
. 
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2001
;
54
:
1046
55
.
17.
Rakovitch
E
,
Gray
R
,
Baehner
FL
,
Sutradhar
R
,
Crager
M
,
Gu
S
, et al
Refined estimates of local recurrence risks by DCIS score adjusting for clinicopathological features: a combined analysis of ECOG-ACRIN E5194 and Ontario DCIS cohort studies
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2018
;
169
:
359
69
.
18.
Visser
LL
,
Elshof
LE
,
Schaapveld
M
,
van de Vijver
K
,
Groen
EJ
,
Almekinders
MM
, et al
Clinicopathological risk factors for an invasive breast cancer recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ-a nested case-control study
.
Clin Cancer Res
2018
;
24
:
3593
601
.
19.
Pruneri
G
,
Lazzeroni
M
,
Bagnardi
V
,
Tiburzio
GB
,
Rotmensz
N
,
DeCensi
A
, et al
The prevalence and clinical relevance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
.
Ann Oncol
2017
;
28
:
321
8
.
20.
Molinaro
AM
,
Sison
JD
,
Ljung
BM
,
Tlsty
TD
,
Kerlikowske
K
. 
Risk prediction for local versus regional/metastatic tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis treated by lumpectomy
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2016
;
157
:
351
61
.
21.
Borgquist
S
,
Zhou
W
,
Jirström
K
,
Amini
RM
,
Sollie
T
,
Sørlie
T
, et al
The prognostic role of HER2 expression in ductal breast carcinoma in situ (DCIS); a population-based cohort study
.
BMC Cancer
2015
;
15
:
468
.
22.
Williams
K
,
Barnes
N
,
Cramer
A
,
Johnson
R
,
Cheema
K
,
Morris
J
, et al
Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence
.
Ann Oncol
2015
;
26
:
1019
25
.
23.
Curigliano
G
,
Disalvatore
D
,
Esposito
A
,
Pruneri
G
,
Lazzeroni
M
,
Guerrieri-Gonzaga
A
, et al
Risk of subsequent in situ and invasive breast cancer in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive ductal carcinoma in situ
.
Ann Oncol
2015
;
26
:
682
7
.
24.
Cheung
S
,
Booth
ME
,
Kearins
O
,
Dodwell
D
. 
Risk of subsequent invasive breast cancer after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
.
Breast
2014
;
23
:
807
11
.
25.
Generali
D
,
Buffa
FM
,
Deb
S
,
Cummings
M
,
Reid
LE
,
Taylor
M
, et al
COX-2 expression is predictive for early relapse and aromatase inhibitor resistance in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, and is a target for treatment
.
Br J Cancer
2014
;
111
:
46
54
.
26.
Kong
I
,
Narod
SA
,
Taylor
C
,
Paszat
L
,
Saskin
R
,
Nofech-Moses
S
, et al
Age at diagnosis predicts local recurrence in women treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based outcomes analysis
.
Curr Oncol
2014
;
21
:
e96
e104
.
27.
Van Bockstal
M
,
Lambein
K
,
Gevaert
O
,
De Wever
O
,
Praet
M
,
Cocquyt
V
, et al
Stromal architecture and periductal decorin are potential prognostic markers for ipsilateral locoregional recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
.
Histopathology
2013
;
63
:
520
33
.
28.
Solin
LJ
,
Gray
R
,
Baehner
FL
,
Butler
SM
,
Hughes
LL
,
Yoshizawa
C
, et al
A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2013
;
105
:
701
10
.
29.
Donker
M
,
Litière
S
,
Werutsky
G
,
Julien
JP
,
Fentiman
IS
,
Agresti
R
, et al
Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma In Situ: 15-year recurrence rates and outcome after a recurrence, from the EORTC 10853 randomized phase III trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2013
;
31
:
4054
9
.
30.
Collins
LC
,
Achacoso
N
,
Haque
R
,
Nekhlyudov
L
,
Fletcher
SW
,
Quesenberry
CP
 Jr
, et al
Risk factors for non-invasive and invasive local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2013
;
139
:
453
60
.
31.
Holmberg
L
,
Wong
YNS
,
Tabár
L
,
Ringberg
A
,
Karlsson
P
,
Arnesson
LG
, et al
Mammography casting-type calcification and risk of local recurrence in DCIS: analyses from a randomised study
.
Br J Cancer
2013
;
108
:
812
9
.
32.
Knudsen
ES
,
Pajak
TF
,
Qeenan
M
,
McClendon
AK
,
Armon
BD
,
Schwartz
GF
, et al
Retinoblastoma and phosphate and tensin homolog tumor suppressors: impact on ductal carcinoma in situ progression
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2012
;
104
:
1825
36
.
33.
Alvarado
R
,
Lari
SA
,
Roses
RE
,
Smith
BD
,
Yang
W
,
Mittendorf
EA
, et al
Biology, treatment, and outcome in very young and older women with DCIS
.
Ann Surg Oncol
2012
;
19
:
3777
84
.
34.
Rakovitch
E
,
Nofech-Mozes
S
,
Hanna
W
,
Narod
S
,
Thiruchelvam
D
,
Saskin
R
, et al
HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ
.
Br J Cancer
2012
;
106
:
1160
5
.
35.
Han
K
,
Nofech-Mozes
S
,
Narod
S
,
Hanna
W
,
Vesprini
D
,
Saskin
R
, et al
Expression of HER2neu in ductal carcinoma in situ is associated with local recurrence
.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)
2012
;
24
:
183
9
.
36.
Witkiewicz
AK
,
Rivadeneira
DB
,
Ertel
A
,
Kline
J
,
Hyslop
T
,
Schwartz
GF
, et al
Association of RB/p16-pathway perturbations with DCIS recurrence: dependence on tumor versus tissue microenvironment
.
Am J Pathol
2011
;
179
:
1171
8
.
37.
Wapnir
IL
,
Dignam
JJ
,
Fisher
B
,
Mamounas
EP
,
Anderson
SJ
,
Julian
TB
, 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
:
478
88
.
38.
Falk
RS
,
Hofvind
S
,
Skaane
P
,
Haldorsen
T
. 
Second events following ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a register-based cohort study
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2011
;
129
:
929
38
.
39.
Tunon-de-Lara
C
,
André
G
,
Macgrogan
G
,
Dilhuydy
JM
,
Bussières
JE
,
Debled
M
, et al
Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: influence of age on diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic features. Retrospective study of 812 patients
.
Ann Surg Oncol
2011
;
18
:
1372
9
.
40.
Zhou
W
,
Jirström
K
,
Johansson
C
,
Amini
RM
,
Blomqvist
C
,
Agbaje
O
, et al
Long-term survival of women with basal-like ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a population-based cohort study
.
BMC Cancer
2010
;
10
:
653
.
41.
Pinder
SE
,
Duggan
C
,
Ellis
IO
,
Cuzick
J
,
Forbes
JF
,
Bishop
H
, et al
A new pathological system for grading DCIS with improved prediction of local recurrence: results from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS trial
.
Br J Cancer
2010
;
103
:
94
100
.
42.
Kerlikowske
K
,
Molinaro
AM
,
Gauthier
ML
,
Berman
HK
,
Waldman
F
,
Bennington
J
, et al
Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2010
;
102
:
627
37
.
43.
Witkiewicz
AK
,
Dasgupta
A
,
Nguyen
KH
,
Liu
C
,
Kovatich
AJ
,
Schwartz
GF
, et al
Stromal caveolin-1 levels predict early DCIS progression to invasive breast cancer
.
Cancer Biol Ther
2009
;
8
:
1071
9
.
44.
Nofech-Mozes
S
,
Spayne
J
,
Rakovitch
E
,
Kahn
HJ
,
Seth
A
,
Pignol
JP
, et al
Biological markers predictive of invasive recurrence in DCIS
.
Clin Med Oncol
2008
;
2
:
7
18
.
45.
Rakovitch
E
,
Pignol
JP
,
Hanna
W
,
Narod
S
,
Spayne
J
,
Nofech-Mozes
S
, et al
Significance of multifocality in ductal carcinoma in situ: outcomes of women treated with breast-conserving therapy
.
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
5591
6
.
46.
Ringberg
A
,
Nordgren
H
,
Thorstensson
S
,
Idvall
I
,
Garmo
H
,
Granstrand
B
, et al
Histopathological risk factors for ipsilateral breast events after breast conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast–results from the Swedish randomised trial
.
Eur J Cancer
2007
;
43
:
291
8
.
47.
Hwang
ES
,
Miglioretti
DL
,
Ballard-Barbash
R
,
Weaver
DL
,
Kerlikowske
K
. 
Association between breast density and subsequent breast cancer following treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
2587
93
.
48.
Smith
BD
,
Haffty
BG
,
Buchholz
TA
,
Smith
GL
,
Galusha
DH
,
Bekelman
JE
, et al
Effectiveness of radiation therapy in older women with ductal carcinoma in situ
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2006
;
98
:
1302
10
.
49.
Li
CI
,
Malone
KE
,
Saltzman
BS
,
Daling
JR
. 
Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988–2001
.
Cancer
2006
;
106
:
2104
12
.
50.
EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group
,
EORTC Radiotherapy Group
,
Bijker
N
,
Meijnen
P
,
Peterse
JL
,
Bogaerts
J
, et al
Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853–a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group
.
J Clin Oncol
2006
;
24
:
3381
7
.
51.
Warren
JL
,
Weaver
DL
,
Bocklage
T
,
Key
CR
,
Platz
CE
,
Cronin
KA
, et al
The frequency of ipsilateral second tumors after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS: a population based analysis
.
Cancer
2005
;
104
:
1840
8
.
52.
Kerlikowske
K
,
Molinaro
A
,
Cha
I
,
Ljung
BM
,
Ernster
VL
,
Stewart
K
, et al
Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2003
;
95
:
1692
702
.
53.
Teo
NB
,
Shoker
BS
,
Jarvis
C
,
Martin
L
,
Sloane
JP
,
Holcombe
C
. 
Angiogenesis and invasive recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
.
Eur J Cancer
2003
;
39
:
38
44
.
54.
Bijker
N
,
Peterse
JL
,
Duchateau
L
,
Julien
JP
,
Fentiman
IS
,
Duval
C
, et al
Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853
.
J Clin Oncol
2001
;
19
:
2263
71
.
55.
Wärnberg
F
,
Bergh
J
,
Zack
M
,
Holmberg
L
. 
Risk factors for subsequent invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death after ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based case-control study in Sweden
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2001
;
10
:
495
9
.
56.
Habel
LA
,
Daling
JR
,
Newcomb
PA
,
Self
SG
,
Porter
PL
,
Stanford
JL
, et al
Risk of recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1998
;
7
:
689
96
.
57.
Newman
LA
,
Mason
J
,
Cote
D
,
Vin
Y
,
Carolin
K
,
Bouwman
D
, et al
African-American ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer survival: a meta-analysis of 14 studies involving over 10,000 African-American and 40,000 White American patients with carcinoma of the breast
.
Cancer
2002
;
94
:
2844
54
.
58.
Partridge
AH
,
Hughes
ME
,
Warner
ET
,
Ottesen
RA
,
Wong
YN
,
Edge
SB
, et al
Subtype-dependent relationship between young age at diagnosis and breast cancer survival
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
3308
14
.
59.
Barnes
NL
,
Dimopoulos
N
,
Williams
KE
,
Howe
M
,
Bundred
NJ
. 
The frequency of presentation and clinico-pathological characteristics of symptomatic versus screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
.
Eur J Surg Oncol
2014
;
40
:
249
54
.
60.
Bijker
N
,
Peterse
JL
,
Duchateau
L
,
Robanus-Maandag
EC
,
Bosch
CA
,
Duval
C
, et al
Histological type and marker expression of the primary tumour compared with its local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ
.
Br J Cancer
2001
;
84
:
539
44
.
61.
Gauthier
ML
,
Berman
HK
,
Miller
C
,
Kozakeiwicz
K
,
Chew
K
,
Moore
D
, et al
Abrogated response to cellular stress identifies DCIS associated with subsequent tumor events and defines basal-like breast tumors
.
Cancer Cell
2007
;
12
:
479
91
.
62.
Holland
R
,
Peterse
JL
,
Millis
RR
,
Eusebi
V
,
Faverly
D
,
van de Vijver
MJ
, et al
Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification
.
Semin Diagn Pathol
1994
;
11
:
167
80
.
63.
Poller
DN
,
Silverstein
MJ
,
Galea
M
,
Locker
AP
,
Elston
CW
,
Blamey
RW
, et al
Ideas in pathology. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a proposal for a new simplified histological classification association between cellular proliferation and c-erbB-2 protein expression
.
Mod Pathol
1994
;
7
:
257
62
.
64.
Scott
MA
,
Lagios
MD
,
Axelsson
K
,
Rogers
LW
,
Anderson
TJ
,
Page
DL
. 
Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: reproducibility of histological subtype analysis
.
Hum Pathol
1997
;
28
:
967
73
.
65.
Sloane
JP
,
Amendoeira
I
,
Apostolikas
N
,
Bellocq
JP
,
Bianchi
S
,
Boecker
W
, et al
Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology
.
Hum Pathol
1998
;
29
:
1056
62
.
66.
Van Bockstal
M
,
Baldewijns
M
,
Colpaert
C
,
Dano
H
,
Floris
G
,
Galant
C
, et al
Dichotomous histopathological assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast results in substantial inter-observer concordance
.
Histopathology
2018
;
73
:
923
32
.
67.
Zhang
X
,
Dai
H
,
Liu
B
,
Song
F
,
Chen
K
. 
Predictors for local invasive recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a meta-analysis
.
Eur J Cancer Prev
2016
;
25
:
19
28
.
68.
Boyages
J
,
Delaney
G
,
Taylor
R
. 
Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis
.
Cancer
1999
;
85
:
616
28
.
69.
Wang
SY
,
Shamliyan
T
,
Virnig
BA
,
Kane
R
. 
Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2011
;
127
:
1
14
.
70.
Delgado-Rodriguez
M
. 
Bias
.
J Epidemiol Community Heal
2004
;
58
:
635
41
.
71.
Burak
WE
 Jr
,
Owens
KE
,
Tighe
MB
,
Kemp
L
,
Dinges
SA
,
Hitchcock
CL
, et al
Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy: histologic underestimation of malignant lesions
.
Arch Surg
2000
;
135
:
700
3
.
72.
Brennan
ME
,
Turner
RM
,
Ciatto
S
,
Marinovich
ML
,
French
JR
,
Macaskill
P
, et al
Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer
.
Radiology
2011
;
260
:
119
28
.
73.
Soumian
S
,
Verghese
ET
,
Booth
M
,
Sharma
N
,
Chaudhri
S
,
Bradley
S
, et al
Concordance between vacuum assisted biopsy and postoperative histology: implications for the proposed Low Risk DCIS Trial (LORIS)
.
Eur J Surg Oncol
2013
;
39
:
1337
40
.
74.
Grimm
LJ
,
Ryser
MD
,
Partridge
AH
,
Thompson
AM
,
Thomas
JS
,
Wesseling
J
, et al
Surgical upstaging rates for vacuum assisted biopsy proven DCIS: implications for active surveillance trials
.
Ann Surg Oncol
2017
;
24
:
3534
40
.
75.
Li
G
,
Sajobi
TT
,
Menon
BK
,
Korngut
L
,
Lowerison
M
,
James
M
, et al
Registry-based randomized controlled trials- what are the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research?
J Clin Epidemiol
2016
;
80
:
16
24
.
76.
Becher
H
,
Winkler
V
. 
Estimating the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) with incomplete follow-up data
.
BMC Med Res Methodol
2017
;
17
:
1
10
.
77.
Lauer
MS
,
D'Agostino
RB
. 
The randomized registry trial–the next disruptive technology in clinical research?
N Engl J Med
2013
;
369
:
1579
81
.
78.
Elm
E
,
Altman
DG
,
Egger
M
,
Pocock
SJ
,
Gotzsche
PC
,
Vandenbroucke
JP
. 
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies
.
PLoS Med
2007
;
e296
.
79.
Gierisch
JM
,
Myers
ER
,
Schmit
KM
,
Crowley
MJ
. 
Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ
.
Ann Intern Med
2014
;
160
:
484
91
.
80.
Shelley Hwang
E
,
Thompson
A
. 
What can molecular diagnostics add to locoregional treatment recommendations for DCIS?
J Natl Cancer Inst
2017
;
109
.
81.
Elshof
LE
,
Tryfonidis
K
,
Slaets
L
,
van Leeuwen-Stok
AE
,
Skinner
VP
,
Dif
N
, et al
Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - the LORD study
.
Eur J Cancer
2015
;
51
:
1497
510
.
82.
Francis
A
,
Thomas
J
,
Fallowfield
L
,
Wallis
M
,
Bartlett
JM
,
Brookes
C
, et al
Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial
.
Eur J Cancer
2014
;
51
:
2296
303
.
83.
Youngwirth
LM
,
Boughey
JC
,
Hwang
ES
. 
Surgery versus monitoring and endocrine therapy for low-risk DCIS: the COMET Trial
.
Bull Am Coll Surg
2017
;
102
:
62
3
.