Open Access Research

Different distribution of breast ductal carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion, and invasion breast cancer

Zhang Wei1, Gao Er-li1, Zhou Yi-li1, Zhai Qi1, Zou Zhang-yong1, Guo Gui-long1*, Chen Guo-rong2, Zheng Hua-min3, Huang Guan-li1 and Zhang Xiao-hua1

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

2 Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

3 Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

For all author emails, please log on.

World Journal of Surgical Oncology 2012, 10:262  doi:10.1186/1477-7819-10-262

Published: 8 December 2012

Abstract

Background

Breast ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) can recur or progress to invasive ductal cancer (IDC), and the interim stage include DCIS with microinvasion (DCIS-Mi). In this article, we attempt to study the study the differences of clinicopathological features, imaging data, and immunohistochemical-based subtypes among DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we attempt to compare the clinicopathological features, immunohistochemical results and imaging data of 866 patients (included 73 DCIS, 72 DCIS-Mi, and 721 IDC).

Results

Patients with DCIS and DCIS-Mi were younger than those with IDC (P = 0.007). DCIS and DCIS-Mi often happened in premenopausal women while IDC was opposite (P <0.001). The incidence of IDC with node-positive was significantly higher than it in DCIS and DCIS-Mi (P <0.001). We also observed that the Her2-positive was more often found in patients with pure DCIS compared to those with DCIS-Mi and DCIS-I (P <0.001). There was a significant difference between the four subgroups (Luminal-A, Luminal-B, ERBB2+, Basal-like) from DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC (P <0.001). Basal-like patients were fewer than other subgroups in DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC. The incidence of the first performance of ultrasound (catheter winded and nodular mass) and mammography (nodular mass) had significantly difference among patients with DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC (P <0.001).

Conclusions

Different clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and imaging features among DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC indicate that they are distinct entities. A larger sample size is needed for further study.

Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion; Invasion breast cancer