Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 2001 Feb;84(4):539–544. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1618

Histological type and marker expression of the primary tumour compared with its local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ

N Bijker 1, J L Peterse 1, L Duchateau 2, E C Robanus-Maandag 1,3, C A J Bosch 1,3, C Duval 4, S Pilotti 5, M J van de Vijver 2
PMCID: PMC2363778  PMID: 11207051

Abstract

We have investigated primary ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) of the breast and their local recurrences after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for histological characteristics and marker expression. Patients who were randomized in the EORTC trial 10853 (wide local excision versus excision plus radiotherapy) and who developed a local recurrence were identified. Histology was reviewed for 116 cases; oestrogen and progesterone receptor status, and HER2/ neu and p53 overexpression were assessed for 71 cases. Comparing the primary DCIS and the invasive or non-invasive recurrence, concordant histology was found in 62%, and identical marker expression in 63%. Although 11% of the recurrences developed at a distance from the primary DCIS, nearly all these showed the same histological and immunohistochemical profile. 5 patients developed well-differentiated DCIS or grade I invasive carcinoma after poorly differentiated DCIS. Although these recurrences occurred in the same quadrant as the primary DCIS, they may be considered as second primary tumours. Only 4 patients developed poorly differentiated DCIS or grade III invasive carcinoma after well differentiated DCIS. We conclude that in most cases the primary DCIS and its local recurrence are related histologically or by marker expression, suggesting that local recurrence usually reflects outgrowth of residual DCIS; progression of well differentiated DCIS towards poorly differentiated DCIS or grade III invasive carcinoma is a non-frequent event. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com

Keywords: ductal carcinoma in situ, breast-conserving therapy, local recurrence, histology, immunohistochemistry

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (60.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bobrow L. G., Happerfield L. C., Gregory W. M., Springall R. D., Millis R. R. The classification of ductal carcinoma in situ and its association with biological markers. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994 Aug;11(3):199–207. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Elston C. W., Ellis I. O. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403–410. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ernster V. L., Barclay J., Kerlikowske K., Grady D., Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA. 1996 Mar 27;275(12):913–918. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Goldstein N. S., Murphy T. Intraductal carcinoma associated with invasive carcinoma of the breast. A comparison of the two lesions with implications for intraductal carcinoma classification systems. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996 Sep;106(3):312–318. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/106.3.312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gupta S. K., Douglas-Jones A. G., Fenn N., Morgan J. M., Mansel R. E. The clinical behavior of breast carcinoma is probably determined at the preinvasive stage (ductal carcinoma in situ). Cancer. 1997 Nov 1;80(9):1740–1745. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Holland R., Peterse J. L., Millis R. R., Eusebi V., Faverly D., van de Vijver M. J., Zafrani B. Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994 Aug;11(3):167–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Julien J. P., Bijker N., Fentiman I. S., Peterse J. L., Delledonne V., Rouanet P., Avril A., Sylvester R., Mignolet F., Bartelink H. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853. EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. Lancet. 2000 Feb 12;355(9203):528–533. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)06341-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lampejo O. T., Barnes D. M., Smith P., Millis R. R. Evaluation of infiltrating ductal carcinomas with a DCIS component: correlation of the histologic type of the in situ component with grade of the infiltrating component. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994 Aug;11(3):215–222. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Leal C. B., Schmitt F. C., Bento M. J., Maia N. C., Lopes C. S. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Histologic categorization and its relationship to ploidy and immunohistochemical expression of hormone receptors, p53, and c-erbB-2 protein. Cancer. 1995 Apr 15;75(8):2123–2131. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19950415)75:8<2123::aid-cncr2820750815>3.0.co;2-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lininger R. A., Fujii H., Man Y. G., Gabrielson E., Tavassoli F. A. Comparison of loss heterozygosity in primary and recurrent ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Mod Pathol. 1998 Dec;11(12):1151–1159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mack L., Kerkvliet N., Doig G., O'Malley F. P. Relationship of a new histological categorization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with size and the immunohistochemical expression of p53, c-erb B2, bcl-2, and ki-67. Hum Pathol. 1997 Aug;28(8):974–979. doi: 10.1016/s0046-8177(97)90014-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Millis R. R., Barnes D. M., Lampejo O. T., Egan M. K., Smith P. Tumour grade does not change between primary and recurrent mammary carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 1998 Mar;34(4):548–553. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(97)10072-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Perin T., Canzonieri V., Massarut S., Bidoli E., Rossi C., Roncadin M., Carbone A. Immunohistochemical evaluation of multiple biological markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer. 1996 Jun;32A(7):1148–1155. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(96)00037-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sloane J. P., Amendoeira I., Apostolikas N., Bellocq J. P., Bianchi S., Boecker W., Bussolati G., Coleman D., Connolly C. E., Dervan P. 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 Oct;29(10):1056–1062. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Waldman F. M., DeVries S., Chew K. L., Moore D. H., 2nd, Kerlikowske K., Ljung B. M. Chromosomal alterations in ductal carcinomas in situ and their in situ recurrences. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 16;92(4):313–320. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.4.313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Zafrani B., Leroyer A., Fourquet A., Laurent M., Trophilme D., Validire P., Sastre-Garau X. Mammographically-detected ductal in situ carcinoma of the breast analyzed with a new classification. A study of 127 cases: correlation with estrogen and progesterone receptors, p53 and c-erbB-2 proteins, and proliferative activity. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994 Aug;11(3):208–214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. van de Vijver M. J., Peterse J. L., Mooi W. J., Wisman P., Lomans J., Dalesio O., Nusse R. Neu-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1988 Nov 10;319(19):1239–1245. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198811103191902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES