Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered the earliest form of breast cancer and noninvasive, meaning it hasn't spread out of the milk duct and has a low risk of becoming invasive. In part 1 of the DCIS webinar series, you will learn about different types and grades of DCIS and why that is important. The grade of a cancer describes how the cells look and how quickly they grow compared with normal cells. It also indicates how likely it is to develop into an invasive cancer. There is no one-size-fits-all treatment plan for DCIS.
Our speaker, Deborah Collyar, a DCIS survivor, author, and President of Patient Advocates In Research (PAIR) will discuss the specific factors needed as you consider treatment options vs active monitoring.
A diagnosis of DCIS can be very confusing. All the words a person hears sound like “cancer” but you may be told you don’t really have cancer. If it’s not really cancer, that it’s not a single disease, but a heterogenous condition that conveys varying level of risks, that we don’t really know the likelihood that it will come back, and most importantly, that they are very unlikely to die because of it. It is also not uncommon for patients to be concerned that it’s one of those conditions that might affect other members of their family. Confusion is not something that anyone likes, especially for something that feels like threatening.
Thousands of women looking for info and not just from medical sources.
There is a substantial amount of misinformation about DCIS and misinformation for newly diagnosed patients is common.
Words to reinforce the points. Cardio deaths
My personal experience.
Misinfo ex: celebrities (Sandra Lee) often mix DCIS with invasive cancer
Research includes: population science, cell biology, imaging + models, all the ‘modalities’, etc.
Other healthcare providers
May have outdated information, think of DCIS as cancer
DCIS may be a person’s first experience with “cancer” It’s not simple!
DCIS wasn’t diagnosed often before mammography. This chart shows more DCIS found as screening increased.
treatment of a condition that might not cause harm during a patients' natural lifetime?
Also autopsy studies show DCIS and IBC there, but they died of something else.
BI-RADS =
Biopsies only collect a small part of the lesion or tumor
Not all pathologists grade the same lesion in the same way.
Cutoff from ADH to DCIS – size?
No cutoffs between ADH and DCIS – it’s up to the pathologist.
LCIS isn’t treated; it’s monitored before surgery.
It’s due to the way medical culture developed.
~ 2/3 are lumpectomy (also called Breast Conserving Surgery)
Personal preference can include yours, your doctors, or both.
Preferences are often based on incorrect interpretation or misunderstanding (internet searches, social media, unfounded fears)
Patient advocate teams from PRECISION & the COMET study have suggested language to de-escalate fear and anxiety in the hopes of promoting better decision making. We suggest discussing DCIS without using the term CANCER when possible. In fact, there is reason to believe that low risk DCIS will probably not lead to invasive cancer. We also suggest using plain language terms, such as “other health conditions” instead of co-morbidities, condition rather than disease, growths/lumps instead of tumors. Words that are commonly associated with cancer escalate fear and anxiety and interfere with informed decision making.
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.