Microinvasive Carcinoma versus Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Comparison of Clinicopathological Features and Clinical Outcomes.
10.4048/jbc.2018.21.2.197
- Author:
Milim KIM
1
;
Hyun Jeong KIM
;
Yul Ri CHUNG
;
Eunyoung KANG
;
Eun Kyu KIM
;
Se Hyun KIM
;
Yu Jung KIM
;
Jee Hyun KIM
;
In Ah KIM
;
So Yeon PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea. sypmd@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Breast neoplasms;
Noninfiltrating intraductal carcinoma;
Recurrence;
Triple negative breast neoplasms
- MeSH:
Biomarkers;
Breast;
Breast Neoplasms;
Carcinoma, Ductal*;
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating*;
Estrogens;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Lymph Nodes;
Multivariate Analysis;
Necrosis;
Neoplasm Metastasis;
Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor;
Receptors, Progesterone;
Recurrence;
Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
- From:Journal of Breast Cancer
2018;21(2):197-205
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Although microinvasive carcinoma is distinct from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the clinical significance of microinvasion in DCIS remains elusive. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes of microinvasive carcinoma compared with pure DCIS. METHODS: We assessed 613 cases of DCIS and microinvasive carcinoma that were consecutively resected from 2003 to 2014 and analyzed clinicopathological variables, expression of standard biomarkers such as the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), p53, and Ki-67, and tumor recurrence. RESULTS: Among the 613 cases, 136 (22.2%) were classified as microinvasive carcinoma. Microinvasive carcinoma was significantly associated with DCIS with a large extent, high nuclear grade, necrosis, and comedotype architectural pattern. ER and PR expressions were dominantly observed in pure DCIS, whereas positive HER2 status, p53 overexpression, and high Ki-67 proliferation indices were more frequently observed in microinvasive carcinoma. Lymph node metastasis was found in only four cases of microinvasive carcinoma with multifocal microinvasion. In the multivariate analysis, DCIS with a large extent, comedo-type architectural pattern, and negative ER status were found to be independent predictors of microinvasion. During follow-up, 12 patients had ipsilateral breast recurrence, and no differences in recurrence rates were observed between patients with DCIS and those with microinvasive carcinoma. The triple-negative subtype was the only factor that was associated with tumor recurrence. CONCLUSION: Microinvasive carcinomas are distinct from DCIS in terms of clinicopathological features and biomarker expressions but are similar to DCIS in terms of clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that microinvasive carcinoma can be treated and followed up as pure DCIS.
