Neoductgenesis in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Coexists with Morphological Abnormalities Characteristic for More Aggressive Tumor Biology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Histopathological Features of Neoductgenesis
3.2. Scores 4–6 Considered as Neoductgenesis
3.3. Scores 5–6 Considered as Neoductgenesis
3.4. The Univariate Logistic Regression Showing the Predictive Value of Neoductgenesis at Different Cut-Off Points
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Badve, S.S.; Gökmen-Polar, Y. Ductal carcinoma in situ of breast: Update 2019. Pathology 2019, 51, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Groen, E.J.; Elshof, L.E.; Visser, L.L.; Rutgers, E.J.T.; Winter-Warnars, H.A.O.; Lips, E.H.; Wesseling, J. Finding the balance between over- and under-treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast 2017, 31, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Martínez-Pérez, C.; Turnbull, A.K.; Ekatah, G.E.; Arthur, L.M.; Sims, A.H.; Thomas, J.S.; Dixon, J.M. Current treatment trends and the need for better predictive tools in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2017, 55, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tabar, L.; Tony Chen, H.H.; Amy Yen, M.F.; Tot, T.; Tung, T.H.; Chen, L.S.; Chiu, Y.H.; Duffy, S.W.; Smith, R.A. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004, 101, 1745–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, W.; Sollie, T.; Tot, T.; Pinder, S.E.; Amini, R.M.; Blomqvist, C.; Fjällskog, M.L.; Christensson, G.; Abdsaleh, S.; Wärnberg, F. Breast Cancer with Neoductgenesis: Histopathological Criteria and Its Correlation with Mammographic and Tumour Features. Int. J. Breast Cancer 2014, 2014, 581706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhou, W.; Sollie, T.; Tot, T.; Blomqvist, C.; Abdsaleh, S.; Liljegren, G.; Wärnberg, F. Ductal Breast Carcinoma In Situ: Mammographic Features and Its Relation to Prognosis and Tumour Biology in a Population Based Cohort. Int. J. Breast Cancer 2017, 2017, 4351319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lester, S.C.; Bose, S.; Chen, Y.Y.; Connolly, J.L.; de Baca, M.E.; Fitzgibbons, P.L.; Hayes, D.F.; Kleer, C.; O’Malley, F.P.; Page, D.L.; et al. Protocol for the Examination of Specimens from Patients with Invasive Carcinoma of the Breast. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2009, 133, 1515–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jakubowski, W.; Dobruch-Sobczak, K.; Migda, B. Standards of the Polish Ultrasound Society—Update. Sonomammography examination. J. Ultrason. 2012, 12, 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zombori, T.; Cserni, G. Elastic stains in the evaluation of DCIS with comedo necrosis in breast cancers. Virchows Arch. 2017, 472, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tot, T. DCIS, cytokeratins, and the theory of the sick lobe. Virchows Arch. 2005, 447, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tabár, L.; Dean, P.B.; Yen, A.M.F.; Tarján, M.; Chiu, S.Y.H.; Chen, S.L.S.; Fann, J.C.Y.; Chen, T.H.H. A Proposal to Unify the Classification of Breast and Prostate Cancers Based on the Anatomic Site of Cancer Origin and on Long-term Patient Outcome. Breast Cancer 2014, 8, BCBCR-S13833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poller, D.N.; Barth, A.; Slamon, D.J.; Silverstein, M.J.; Gierson, E.D.; Coburn, W.J.; Waisman, J.R.; Gamagami, P.; Lewinsky, B.S. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet 1995, 345, 1154–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ponti, A.; Ronco, G.; Lynge, E.; Tomatis, M.; Anttila, A.; Ascunce, N.; Broeders, M.; Bulliard, J.L.; Castellano, I.; Fitzpatrick, P.; et al. Low-grade screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ progresses more slowly than high-grade lesions: Evidence from an international multi-centre study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 177, 761–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roguljic, A.; Spagnoli, G.; Juretic, A.; Sarcevic, B.; Banovic, M.; Beketic Oreskovic, L. Possible predictive role of cancer/testis antigens in breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Oncol. Lett. 2018, 16, 7245–7255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Champion, C.D.; Ren, Y.; Thomas, S.M.; Fayanju, O.M.; Rosenberger, L.H.; Greenup, R.A.; Menendez, C.S.; Hwang, E.S.; Plichta, J.K. DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 3124–3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harbeck, N.; Penault-Llorca, F.; Cortes, J.; Gnant, M.; Houssami, N.; Poortmans, P.; Ruddy, K.; Tsang, J.; Cardoso, F. Breast cancer. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2019, 5, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tot, T.; Tabár, L. The role of radiological–pathological correlation in diagnosing early breast cancer: The pathologist’s perspective. Virchows Arch. 2010, 458, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Characteristic | N = 96 | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Concentration of duct-like structures | No (0) | 15 | 15.6 |
Focal (1) | 69 | 71.9 | |
General (2) | 12 | 12.5 | |
Lymphocytic infiltration | No (0) | 32 | 33.3 |
Mild (1) | 48 | 50.0 | |
Intense (2) | 16 | 16.7 | |
Fibrosis-like thickening of the periductal stroma | No (0) | 47 | 49.0 |
Little (1) | 27 | 28.1 | |
Much (2) | 22 | 22.9 | |
Total score | 0 | 6 | 6.3 |
1 | 20 | 20.8 | |
2 | 22 | 22.9 | |
3 | 21 | 21.9 | |
4 | 18 | 18.8 | |
5 | 9 | 9.4 | |
6 | 0 | 0 |
Characteristic | Neoductgenesis | p-Value/pBH | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Absent, N = 69 | Present, N = 27 | |||
Nuclear grade (N, %) | G1 | 4 (5.8) | 0 (0) | 0.001/0.011 |
G2 | 46 (66.7) | 9 (33.3) | ||
G3 | 19 (27.5) | 18 (66.7) | ||
Histological type (N, %) | Comedo | 7 (10.1) | 8 (29.6) | 0.028/– |
Solid | 50 (72.5) | 21 (77.8) | 0.783/– | |
Cribiform | 45 (65.2) | 9 (33.3) | 0.009/0.024 | |
Micropapillary | 23 (33.3) | 9 (33.3) | 0.810/– | |
Papillary | 15 (21.7) | 3 (11.1) | 0.363/– | |
Apocrine | 4 (5.8) | 3 (11.1) | 0.397/– | |
Clinging | 1 (1.5) | 0 (0) | 1.000/– | |
Spindle cell | 1 (1.5) | 0 (0) | 1.000/– | |
Central necrosis (N, %) | 38 (55.1) | 24 (88.9) | 0.004/0.021 | |
Lymph nodes micrometastases (N, %) | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0%) | 1.000/– | |
Ductal spread (N, %) | 46 (67.7) | 26 (96.3) | 0.007/0.021 | |
Lobular cancerization (N, %) | 29 (42.7) | 21 (77.8) | 0.004/0.017 | |
Microcalcifications (N, %) | 52 (75.4) | 24 (88.9) | 0.235 | |
Paget disease (N, %) | 9 (13.0) | 2 (7.4) | 0.723 | |
Microinvasion (N, %) | 5 (7.4) | 6 (22.2) | 0.070 | |
Tumor size (mm) | 12.3 ± 11.1 | 27.4 ± 18.3 | <0.001/<0.001 | |
ER (%) | 64.1 ± 37.1 | 33.7 ± 39.6 | 0.003/0.021 | |
ER positive, (N, %) | 47 (87.0) | 17 (68.0) | 0.064 | |
PR (%) | 38.2 ± 37.0 | 19.2 ± 33.5 | 0.012/0.028 | |
PR positive, (N, %) | 37 (68.5) | 8 (32.0) | 0.005/0.018 |
Characteristic | Neoductgenesis | p-Value/pBH | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Absent, N = 69 | Present, N = 27 | |||
Clinical Data | ||||
Age at diagnosis (years) | 55.5 ± 10.6 | 56.5 ± 12.0 | 0.557/– | |
The largest tumor size in physical examination (mm) | 21.0 ± 11.8 | 28.3 ± 11.7 | 0.156/– | |
The palpability of the lesion | Yes (N, %) | 10 (15.7) | 9 (40.9) | 0.106/– |
No (N, %) | 33 (64.7) | 12 (54.6) | ||
Paget disease (N, %) | 8 (15.7) | 1 (4.56) | ||
Type of surgery | Mastectomy (N, %) | 21 (39.6) | 11 (47.8) | 0.700/– |
BCT (N, %) | 32 (60.4) | 12 (52.2) | ||
Radiotherapy (N, %) | 24 (53.3) | 11 (47.8) | 0.862/– | |
Hormonotherapy (N, %) | 30 (65.2) | 7 (31.8) | 0.020/– | |
Family history of breast cancer (N, %) | 11 (22.5) | 3 (13.0) | 0.525/– | |
Radiological Data | ||||
Solid lesion in MMG (N, %) | 9 (25.7) | 10 (45.5) | 0.211/– | |
BI-RADS USG (N, %) | 1 | 10 (25.0) | 6 (30.0) | 0.285/– |
2 | 10 (25.0) | 1 (5.0) | ||
3 | 3 (7.5) | 2 (10.0) | ||
4 | 17 (42.5) | 7 (35.0) | ||
5 | 0 (0) | 4 (20.0) | ||
BI-RADS MMG (N, %) | 0 | 2 (5.1) | 2 (9.1) | 0.028/0.056 |
1 | 5 (12.8) | 0 (0) | ||
2 | 3 (7.7) | 0 (0) | ||
3 | 3 (7.7) | 1 (4.6) | ||
4 | 25 (64.1) | 13 (59.1) | ||
5 | 1 (2.6) | 6 (27.3) | ||
The largest tumor size in USG (mm) | 14.8 ± 9.6 | 23.4 ± 10.6 | 0.006/0.036 | |
The largest tumor size in MMG (mm) | 22.0 ± 21.3 | 40.9 ± 26.6 | 0.014/0.042 | |
Microcalcifications in MMG (N, %) | 28 (75.7) | 17 (77.3) | 0.860/– |
Characteristic | Neoductgenesis | p-Value/pBH | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Absent, N = 87 | Present, N = 9 | |||
Nuclear grade (N, %) | G1 | 4 (4.6) | 0 (0) | 0.039/– |
G2 | 53 (60.9) | 2 (22.2) | ||
G3 | 30 (34.5) | 7 (77.8) | ||
Histological type (N, %) | Comedo | 11 (12.6) | 4 (44.4) | 0.031/– |
Solid | 63 (72.4) | 8 (88.9) | 0.438/– | |
Cribiform | 52 (59.8) | 2 (22.2) | 0.039/– | |
Micropapillary | 30 (34.5) | 2 (22.2) | 0.713/– | |
Papillary | 18 (20.7) | 0 (0) | 0.201/– | |
Apocrine | 6 (6.9) | 1 (11.1) | 0.510/– | |
Clinging | 1 (1.2) | 0 (0) | 1.000/– | |
Spindle cell | 1 (1.2) | 0 (0) | 1.000/– | |
Comedo necrosis (N, %) | 38 (55.1) | 54 (62.1) | 0.152/– | |
Lymph nodes micrometastases (N, %) | 1 (2.1) | 1 (1.6) | 1.000/– | |
Ductal spread (N, %) | 46 (67.7) | 63 (73.3) | 0.108/– | |
Lobular cancerization (N, %) | 29 (42.7) | 42 (48.8) | 0.033/– | |
Microcalcifications (N, %) | 52 (75.4) | 68 (78.2) | 0.680/– | |
Paget disease (N, %) | 9 (13.0) | 11 (12.6) | 0.592/– | |
Microinvasion (N, %) | 5 (7.4) | 8 (9.3) | 0.067/– | |
Tumor size (mm) | 12.3 ± 11.06 | 15.7 ± 15.2 | 0.011/– | |
ER (%) | 64.1 ± 37.1 | 57.1 ± 39.4 | 0.078/– | |
ER positive (N, %) | 47 (87.0) | 60 (84.5) | 0.038/– | |
PR (%) | 38.2 ± 37.0 | 35.7 ± 37.2 | 0.009/– | |
PR positive (N, %) | 37 (68.5) | 44 (62.0) | 0.018/– |
Characteristic | Neoductgenesis | p-Value/pBH | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Absent, N = 69 | Present, N = 27 | |||
Clinical Data | ||||
Age at diagnosis (years) | 56.0 ± 10.9 | 50.1 ± 10.7 | 0.126/– | |
The largest tumor size in physical examination (mm) | 23.0 ± 11.7 | 33.3 ± 11.6 | 0.211/– | |
The palpability of the lesion | Yes (N, %) | 42 (62.7) | 3 (50.0) | 0.302/– |
No (N, %) | 16 (23.9) | 3 (50.0) | ||
Paget disease (N, %) | 9 (13.4) | 0 (0) | ||
Type of surgery | Mastectomy (N, %) | 29 (42.7) | 5 (62.5) | 1.000/– |
BCT (N, %) | 39 (57.4) | 3 (37.5) | ||
Radiotherapy (N, %) | 31 (50.8) | 4 (57.1) | 1.000/– | |
Hormonotherapy (N, %) | 35 (57.4) | 2 (28.6) | 0.233/– | |
Family history of breast cancer (N, %) | 13 (20.0) | 1 (14.3) | 1.000/– | |
Radiological Data | ||||
Solid lesion in MMG (N, %) | 17 (33.3) | 2 (33.3) | 1.000/– | |
BI-RADS USG | 1 | 15 (27.8) | 1 (16.7) | 0.654/– |
2 | 10 (18.5) | 1 (16.7) | ||
3 | 5 (9.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
4 | 20 (37.0) | 4 (66.7) | ||
5 | 4 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | ||
BI-RADS MMG | 0 | 3 (5.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.383/– |
1 | 5 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) | ||
2 | 5 (12.8) | 0 (0) | ||
3 | 3 (5.5) | 1 (4.6) | ||
4 | 35 (63.6) | 3 (50.0) | ||
5 | 5 (9.1) | 2 (33.3) | ||
The largest tumor size in USG (mm) | 16.3 ± 9.0 | 30.8 ± 14.3 | 0.033/– | |
The largest tumor size in MMG (mm) | 29.1 ± 25.8 | 31.7 ± 14.6 | 0.476/– | |
Microcalcifications in MMG (N, %) | 40 (75.5) | 5 (83.3) | 1.000/– |
Characteristic | Neoductgenesis as Scores 4–6 | Neoductgenesis as Scores 5–6 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95%CI | p-Value/pBH | OR | 95%CI | p-Value/pBH | |
Pathology | ||||||
Comedo necrosis | 6.53 | 1.80–23.72 | 0.004/0.008 | 4.89 | 0.59–40.87 | 0.143/– |
Ductal spread | 12.44 | 1.58–97.66 | 0.017/0.027 | – | – | 0.997/– |
Lobular cancerization | 4.71 | 1.69–13.14 | 0.003/0.012 | 8.38 | 1.01–69.93 | 0.049/– |
Microcalcifications | 2.62 | 0.70–9.78 | 0.153/– | 2.24 | 0.26–19.00 | 0.461/– |
Microinvasion | 3.60 | 0.995–13.02 | 0.051/– | 4.88 | 1.02–23.32 | 0.045/– |
ER-positive | 0.32 | 0.10–1.01 | 0.051/– | 0.18 | 0.04–0.85 | 0.03/– |
PR-positive | 0.22 | 0.08–0.60 | 0.003/0.008 | 0.08 | 0.01–0.75 | 0.026/– |
Grading G3 | 5.26 | 2.02–13.73 | <0.001/0.006 | 6.65 | 1.3–34.03 | 0.023/– |
Radiology | ||||||
BI-RADS 4–5 (Biopsies indicators) | 5.09 | 0.59–43.69 | 0.138/– | – | – | 0.998/– |
Solid lesion in MMG | 2.41 | 0.78–7.50 | 0.128/– | – | – | 1.000/– |
Clinical | ||||||
Symptomatic tumor (palpable lesions and Paget disease) | 1.53 | 0.55–4.22 | 0.414/– | 1.68 | 0.32–8.97 | 0.544/– |
Solid lesion in MMG | 2.41 | 0.78–7.50 | 0.128/– | – | – | 1.000/– |
Hormonotherapy | 0.25 | 0.08–0.74 | 0.012/0.036 | 0.3 | 0.05–1.65 | 0.166/– |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Łazarczyk, A.; Streb, J.; Hałubiec, P.; Streb-Smoleń, A.; Jach, R.; Hodorowicz-Zaniewska, D.; Łuczyńska, E.; Szpor, J. Neoductgenesis in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Coexists with Morphological Abnormalities Characteristic for More Aggressive Tumor Biology. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040787
Łazarczyk A, Streb J, Hałubiec P, Streb-Smoleń A, Jach R, Hodorowicz-Zaniewska D, Łuczyńska E, Szpor J. Neoductgenesis in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Coexists with Morphological Abnormalities Characteristic for More Aggressive Tumor Biology. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(4):787. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040787
Chicago/Turabian StyleŁazarczyk, Agnieszka, Joanna Streb, Przemysław Hałubiec, Anna Streb-Smoleń, Robert Jach, Diana Hodorowicz-Zaniewska, Elżbieta Łuczyńska, and Joanna Szpor. 2023. "Neoductgenesis in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Coexists with Morphological Abnormalities Characteristic for More Aggressive Tumor Biology" Diagnostics 13, no. 4: 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040787