MOJ ISSN: 2475-5494 MOJWH

Women's Health
Volume 1 Issue 3 - 2015
Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) of the Breast: Prognostic Models and Predictive Molecular Markers
Nikiforita Poulakaki*
Breast Surgeon, Metropolitan Hospital, Greece
Received: November 23, 2015 | Published: December 07, 2015
*Corresponding author: Nikiforita Poulakaki, Breast Surgeon, Metropolitan Hospital, Ethnarchou Makariou & Irinis N.Faliro Athens, Greece, Tel: +306944530710; Email:
Citation: Poulakaki N (2015) Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) of the Breast: Prognostic Models and Predictive Molecular Markers. MOJ Womens Health 1(3): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/mojwh.2015.01.00012


Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is the most common type of noninvasive breast cancer lesions. Considered as a direct precursor for invasive breast cancer [1,2], local recurrence is the major concern in patients diagnosed with DCIS, as its invasive component has been associated with high rates of distant disease and even mortality [3,4].

Screening programs in advanced health systems [1] resulted in increased incidence of DCIS detected either by mammography or through biopsies [5,6]. Surgical biopsy delivers important information about the extent of a lesion, its margins, multifocality or multicentricity, along with histopathological grading and immunohistochemical information (estrogen and progesterone receptor status, HER2 status and the proliferative potential of the lesion, often by using Ki-67 index). The detailed findings of DCIS may usually help the clinician to make a decision about the need of an additional surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy or tamoxifen chemoprevention [7]. Van Nuys prognostic index is a well established framework that in the initial version (1996) combined three predictors of local recurrence: tumor size, margin width, and pathological classification [8,9].

After a short period of time, the updated University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index also incorporated patients’ age at an inverse pattern. DCIS patients with intermediate scores can be considered for treatment with excision only, whereas patients with high scores of (10 or higher) should be considered for further treatment (whole-breast irradiation, mastectomy, tamoxifen) [10,11]. Multi-gene assays has recently been established in the DCIS prognostic characterization [12].

Further improvement of both risk stratification and treatment recommendation for women with DCIS, current research has aimed to identify biological markers of local recurrence, which may potentially differentiate women with DCIS in high and low risk populations [13]. Conflicting results have been published, as some studies supporting that biological markers are associated with recurrence rates [14,15], whereas other studies did not [16]. A very important study, in a multivariate model, Kerlikowske et al. [17] suggested that DCIS lesions that were p16(+)COX-2(+)Ki- 67(+) or those detected by palpation were significantly associated with subsequent invasive cancer [17]. The role of high grade in the prognosis of DCIS recurrence is also in agreement with the University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index framework [8-10].

Recurrence rates of a DCIS have also been examined at the meta-analytical level, with various results. Wang et al. [18] synthesized 44 eligible articles and highlighted as risk factors for ipsilateral recurrence of DCIS comedonecrosis, focality, margin status, method of detection, tumor grade and tumor size. The most recent meta-analysis, published in 2015 by Zhang et al. [19], confirmed the significant associations with DCIS recurrence and positive margin, the non-screening (symptomatic) detection method, but did not support a significant association with high or intermediate nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, large tumor size, multifocality, estrogen receptor-status, progesterone receptor-status, or HER2/neu-positivity, leaving the issue open to discussion. Markedly, Wang et al. [18] underlined the scarcity of data regarding the role of Ki-67 in DCIS recurrence [18] whereas Zhang et al. did not address Ki-67 in this context [19].

Regarding underlying mechanisms, Ki-67 is a marker of cellular proliferation; it is present during the active phases of the cell cycle, but not during the resting phase G0 [20]. Increased cellular proliferation may therefore signal the potential for a future recurrence.                Molecular predictors for DCIS recurrence is challenging because the expression levels are often correlated. Therefore the evaluation of multiple markers simultaneously in a multivariate model seems mandatory, so as to disentangle the various, mutually superimposed, prognostic effects. Moreover, the adoption of cut-off point values for molecular markers may also affect results at a certain degree. Future studies for in-depth knowledge of the biology components and additional molecular markers could reveal additional predictive elements on this field.


  1. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, et al. (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(20): 1546-1554.
  2. Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, Eusebi V, Faverly D, et al. (1994) Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 11(3): 167-180.
  3. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Martino S, Lewinsky BS, Craig PH, et al. (1998) Outcome after invasive local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 16(4): 1367-1373.
  4. Solin LJ, Fourquet A, McCormick B, Haffty B, Recht A, et al. (1994) Salvage treatment for local recurrence following breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30(1): 3-9.
  5. Kerlikowske K (2010) Epidemiology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010(41): 139-141.
  6. Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Nonni A, Koulocheri D, et al. (2008) Minimizing underestimation rate of microcalcifications excised via vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a blind study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109(2): 397-402.
  7. Boxer MM, Delaney GP, Chua BH (2013) A review of the management of ductal carcinoma in situ following breast conserving surgery. Breast 22(6): 1019-1025.
  8. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, et al. (1996) A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 77(11): 2267-2274.
  9. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, et al. (1999) The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 340(19): 1455-1461.
  10. Silverstein MJ (2003) The University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg 186(4): 337-343.
  11. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD (2010) Choosing treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: fine tuning the University of Southern California/Van Nuys Prognostic Index. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010(41):193-196.
  12. Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, Butler SM, Hughes LL, et al. (2013) A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(10): 701-710.
  13. Benson JR, Wishart GC (2013) Predictors of recurrence for ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conserving surgery. Lancet Oncol 14(9): e348-e357.
  14. Provenzano E, Hopper JL, Giles GG, Marr G, Venter DJ, et al. (2003) Biological markers that predict clinical recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer 39(5): 622-630.
  15. Ringberg A, Anagnostaki L, Anderson H, Idvall I, Ferno M, et al. (2001) Cell biological factors in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast-relationship to ipsilateral local recurrence and histopathological characteristics. Eur J Cancer 37(12): 1514-1522.
  16. Cornfield DB, Palazzo JP, Schwartz GF, Goonewardene SA, Kovatich AJ, et al. (2004) The prognostic significance of multiple morphologic features and biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a study of a large cohort of patients treated with surgery alone. Cancer 100(11): 2317-2327.
  17. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro AM, Gauthier ML, Berman HK, Waldman F, et al. (2010) Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(9): 627-637.
  18. Wang SY, Shamliyan T, Virnig BA, Kane R (2011) Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(1): 1-14.
  19. Zhang X, Dai H, Liu B, Song F, Chen K (2016) Predictors for local invasive recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 25(1): 19-28.
  20. Scholzen T, Gerdes J (2000) The Ki-67 protein: from the known and the unknown. J Cell Physiol 182(3): 311-322.
© 2014-2018 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy