Search

Background Population mammographic screening for breast cancer has led to large increases in the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk DCIS to mitigate against potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, clinicians and patients remain reluctant to choose active surveillance, even within a trial setting. Re-calibration of the diagnostic threshold for low-risk DCIS and/or use of a label that does not include the word ‘cancer’ might encourage the uptake of active surveillance and other conservative treatment options. We aimed to identify and collate relevant epidemiological evidence to inform further discussion on these ideas. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for low-risk DCIS studies in four categories: (1) natural history; (2) subclinical cancer found at autopsy; (3) diagnostic reproducibility (two or more pathologist interpretations at a single time point); and (4) diagnostic drift (two or more pathologist interpretations at different time points). Where we identified a pre-existing systematic review, the search was restricted to studies published after the inclusion period of the review. Two authors screened records, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. We undertook a narrative synthesis of the included evidence within each category. Results Natural History (n = 11): one systematic review and nine primary studies were included, but only five provided evidence on the prognosis of women with low-risk DCIS. These studies reported that women with low-risk DCIS had comparable outcomes whether or not they had surgery. The risk of invasive breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 6.5% (7.5 years) to 10.8% (10 years). The risk of dying from breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 1.2 to 2.2% (10 years). Subclinical cancer at autopsy (n = 1): one systematic review of 13 studies estimated the mean prevalence of subclinical in situ breast cancer to be 8.9%. Diagnostic reproducibility (n = 13): two systematic reviews and 11 primary studies found at most moderate agreement in differentiating low-grade DCIS from other diagnoses. Diagnostic drift: no studies found. Conclusion Epidemiological evidence supports consideration of relabelling and/or recalibrating diagnostic thresholds for low-risk DCIS. Such diagnostic changes would need agreement on the definition of low-risk DCIS and improved diagnostic reproducibility.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status can be tested with immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH). The 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) HER2 testing guidelines suggest initial HER2 testing using IHC and further testing IHC equivocal cases with ISH. However, many institutions perform both IHC and ISH on the same specimen. This study aims to analyze the concordance between HER2 IHC and ISH in order to evaluate the benefit of repeating HER2 testing on the same breast cancer specimens.Patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer through BreastScreen NSW Sydney West program between January 2018 and December 2020 were identified and their HER2 IHC and HER2 ISH results on core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical excisions (SE) were retrospectively collected. Specimens with both IHC and ISH results were then analyzed for agreement and concordance using unweighted kappa values. Equivocal IHC (2+) cases were excluded from concordance analysis.Overall, there were 240 invasive breast cancer specimens (CNB and SE) with both IHC and ISH recorded. Concordance between HER2 IHC and ISH was 100% (95% CI: 96.2-100%; κ = 1.00 (P 0.001)). Of the IHC equivocal cases (n = 146), 94.5% were ISH negative.There was perfect positive concordance and agreement between non-equivocal IHC and ISH results. This reinforces that IHC alone can be utilized reliably for testing HER2 status of non-equivocal cases consistent with the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines.