Search

Overdiagnosis, and thus overtreatment, are inevitable consequences of most screening programmes; identification of ways of minimising the impact of overdiagnosis demands new prospective research, in particular the need to separate clinically relevant lesions that require active treatment from those that can be safely left alone or monitored and only need treated if they change characteristics. Breast cancer screening has led to a large increase in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnoses. This is a widely heterogeneous disease and most DCIS detected through screening is of high cytonuclear grade and therefore likely to be important clinically. However, the historic practice of surgical treatment for all DCIS is unlikely to be optimal for lower risk patients. A clearer understanding of how to manage DCIS is required. This article describes the background and development of ‘The low risk’ DCIS trial (LORIS), a phase III trial of surgery versus active monitoring. LORIS will determine if it is appropriate to manage women with screen detected or asymptomatic, low grade and intermediate grade DCIS with low grade features, by active monitoring rather than by surgical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate conventional prognostic factors for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), distant metastasis (DM), and survival after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) in screen-detected and symptomatic cases on surveillance up to 25 years. Patients and Methods: A total of 1812 consecutive patients in three cohorts (1981–1989, 1990–1992, and 1993–1998) with T12N01M0 invasive breast cancer were treated with BCT (median follow-up, 14 years). Tumor type and grade were reviewed by a single pathologist. Hormone receptor status was measured by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess independent prognostic variables for relapse and survival. Results: A total of 205 IBTR occurred, with 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year actuarial relapse rates of 4.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.35–5.5%), 8.4% (95% CI 7.1–9.8%), 14.1% (95% CI 12.0–16%), and 17.4% (95% CI 14.5–20.2%). Number of nodes, young age, pathologic tumor size, and multifocality were significant factors for IBTR. Three hundred seventy-eight patients developed DM. The actuarial metastatic rate was 12% at 5 years and 17.9% at 10 years. Young age, number of positive nodes, pathologic tumor size, and tumor grade were significant factors for DM relapse. When conventional prognostic indices were taken into account screen-detected cancers showed no improvement in overall relapse or survival rate compared with symptomatic cases but did show a reduced risk of DM after IBTR. After 10 years IBTR relapse continued at a constant rate of 0.87% per annum. Conclusions: The Edinburgh BCT series has shown that screen-detected invasive breast cancers do not have significantly different clinical outcomes compared with symptomatic cases when pathologic risk factors are taken into account. This suggests that these patients be managed in a similar way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]