Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to breast epithelial cells that have become “cancerous” but still reside in their normal place in the ducts and lobules. In this setting, cancerous means that there is an abnormal increase in the growth of the epithelial cells, which accumulate within and greatly expand the ducts and lobules. DCIS is a nonlethal type of cancer because it stays in its normal place. However, DCIS is very important because it is the immediate precursor of invasive breast cancers, which are potentially lethal. This article provides a general overview of DCIS, including historical perspective, methods of classification, current perspective, and future goals.

The normal female human breast contains tens of thousands of lobules, which are small grape-like clusters of glands lined by epithelial cells specialized to produce milk (1). The lobules are interconnected by small ducts, which join to form larger ducts that eventually exit through the nipple, transmitting milk to nourish our young (Figure 1). Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to breast epithelial cells that have become “cancerous” but still reside in their normal place in the ducts and lobules. In this setting, cancerous means that there is an abnormal increase in the growth of the epithelial cells, which accumulate within and greatly expand the ducts and lobules (Figure 1). DCIS is a nonlethal type of cancer because it stays in its normal place. However, DCIS is very important because it is the immediate precursor of invasive breast cancers (IBCs), which are potentially lethal (2–4).

The female human breast is composed of thousands of grape-like clusters of small glands lined by epithelial cells that produce milk, referred to as terminal duct lobular units (TDLUs). The milk is propagated outward through a series of interconnecting and increasingly large ducts that exit the nipple. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to breast epithelial cells that have become “cancerous” but still reside in their normal place. In this setting, cancerous means that there is an abnormal increase in the growth of the epithelial cells, which accumulate within and greatly expand the glands and ducts.
Figure 1

The female human breast is composed of thousands of grape-like clusters of small glands lined by epithelial cells that produce milk, referred to as terminal duct lobular units (TDLUs). The milk is propagated outward through a series of interconnecting and increasingly large ducts that exit the nipple. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to breast epithelial cells that have become “cancerous” but still reside in their normal place. In this setting, cancerous means that there is an abnormal increase in the growth of the epithelial cells, which accumulate within and greatly expand the glands and ducts.

The recognition of DCIS as a specific disease distinct from IBC occurred gradually, primarily during the first half of the 20th century (3,5–10). It was rare during that time, accounting for only 1%–2% of newly diagnosed breast cancers, and was usually detected when it formed a large palpable mass (11). Mastectomy became the standard therapy, and it essentially cured patients (11).

Three developments occurred during the latter half of the 20th century, which dramatically changed our perception, awareness, and treatment of DCIS. First was the general acceptance by the scientific and medical communities that DCIS was indeed the immediate precursor of IBC (4,12–17) and, therefore, required effective therapy—ideally something less disfiguring than mastectomy because it is nonlethal. Second was screening mammography, which enabled DCIS to be detected early, when it was small and before it had progressed to IBC. Mammography primarily identifies microscopic calcifications, which are commonly associated with DCIS, and is highly sensitive. Screening greatly increased the frequency of detection, and now DCIS accounts for 20%–30% of all newly diagnosed breast cancers in populations with easy access to this technology (11,18). Third was the adoption of effective therapies for DCIS that allowed patients to keep their breasts, including lumpectomy, postoperative radiation, and adjuvant endocrine therapy (11,19,20). These therapies were originally developed to treat IBC.

Since it was first recognized, clinical and scientific research on DCIS has increased at an accelerating pace, and there is a large body of literature on the subject today. Early achievements included the development of methods of classifying DCIS based on gross and histological features viewed under the microscope. These features included the architectural arrangement or growth pattern of cells, the size and shape of cells and their nuclei, estimates of growth rate based on counting dividing cells referred to as mitotic figures, and the amount of cell necrosis.

In the pre-mammography era, the most commonly encountered DCIS were composed of large, irregularly shaped, rapidly dividing cells growing as a solid mass within ducts, with abundant necrosis in the center. They usually formed a large palpable mass and were referred to as “comedo” DCIS because the necrotic cell debris grossly oozed from the ducts when the excised tumor was squeezed, resembling comedones (as in acne) (7). The other types of DCIS, which were encountered more rarely before mammography, were usually not palpable or visible grossly and were classified primarily on their predominant microscopic growth pattern, which included cribriform, solid, papillary, and micropapillary (Figure 2, B–E). In general, the cells in these tumors were also smaller, more normal appearing, and less necrotic than in comedo DCIS, so they were often referred to collectively as “non-comedo” DCIS (7). However, a large proportion of DCIS shows complex combinations of growth patterns and cellular features (Figure 2, F), and a shortcoming of this method of classification is its inability to convey intratumor diversity, which is almost certainly important clinically, although we are just beginning to understand how and why (15,16,21).

A historical method of classifying ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is based on their predominant microscopic growth pattern and includes comedo (A), cribriform (B), solid (C), micropapillary (D), and papillary (E) subtypes. However, a large proportion of DCIS shows complex mixtures of growth patterns (F), which is difficult to categorize.
Figure 2

A historical method of classifying ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is based on their predominant microscopic growth pattern and includes comedo (A), cribriform (B), solid (C), micropapillary (D), and papillary (E) subtypes. However, a large proportion of DCIS shows complex mixtures of growth patterns (F), which is difficult to categorize.

More recent methods of taxonomy and terminology attempt to convey the relative degree that tumor cells in DCIS resemble normal cells, referred to as differentiation, and how rapidly they are dividing. Numerical scoring and grading systems were developed to reflect differentiation and growth. There are several and the details vary somewhat, but most ultimately recognize three grades, corresponding to well (grade 1), moderately (grade 2), and poorly (grade 3) differentiated DCIS (Figure 3) (22,23). When applied to previous terminology, comedo DCIS are poorly differentiated, whereas the non-comedo types are variable, although the majority are well to moderately differentiated. Current methods of histological grading are also unable to convey information about diversity within individual cases of DCIS (Figure 2, F). Grading DCIS was patterned after preexisting methods developed for grading IBCs, where a direct relationship between differentiation and clinical aggressiveness had been appreciated for a long time (24,25). All of these methods of classifying DCIS are still in use today, often interchangeably, which can be confusing and which could be improved.

A relatively recent approach to classifying ductal carcinoma in situ is based on the degree that the tumor cells resemble normal cells (referred to as differentiation), and the rate the cells are proliferating. Histological grading systems have been developed, which assign scores or points to convey the magnitude of certain cellular features in the tumor, such as the degree of gland or papillae formation, nuclear size and shape, mitotic rate, and the amount of central necrosis. There are several methods and their details vary, but most recognize three grades corresponding to well (grade 1), moderately (grade 2), and poorly (grade 3) differentiated. However, there is no accepted standard method of grading. DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ.
Figure 3

A relatively recent approach to classifying ductal carcinoma in situ is based on the degree that the tumor cells resemble normal cells (referred to as differentiation), and the rate the cells are proliferating. Histological grading systems have been developed, which assign scores or points to convey the magnitude of certain cellular features in the tumor, such as the degree of gland or papillae formation, nuclear size and shape, mitotic rate, and the amount of central necrosis. There are several methods and their details vary, but most recognize three grades corresponding to well (grade 1), moderately (grade 2), and poorly (grade 3) differentiated. However, there is no accepted standard method of grading. DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ.

Current thinking is that most IBCs evolve through a nonobligatory series of increasingly abnormal “stages” over long periods of time, probably decades in most cases (Figure 4). In order, the stages are generally referred to as hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and in situ carcinoma. DCIS is the most common (80%–90%) type of in situ carcinoma in the breast, it represents an advanced or late stage of premalignant tumor progression, and it is the direct precursor of most IBCs, which is supported by a great deal of indirect but compelling evidence (4). For example, nearly all IBCs are accompanied by DCIS, and foci of histological continuity can be found between them (Figure 4) (21). The major risk factors for developing IBC are the same for DCIS (11,26). Furthermore, DCIS diagnosed in the past, especially if not completely excised, is a strong risk factor for developing IBC in the future (7,27–29). DCIS and IBC share many identical genetic abnormalities, especially when they are in the same breast (4,30). Genetically engineered animal models of breast cancer progress from in situ to invasive disease (31,32). Progression of noninvasive to invasive cancer occurs in other organs where it is easier to observe, such as skin and cervix, so there is ample biological precedence.

Invasive breast cancers (IBCs) are thought to evolve through a nonobligatory series of increasingly abnormal “stages,” referred to as hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and carcinoma in situ over long periods of time, probably decades in most cases. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the main type of carcinoma in situ in the breast (80%–90%) and a late stage of breast cancer evolution. Many types of evidence support the hypothesis that DCIS are the immediate precursor of IBCs, including points of histological continuity (right photomicrograph).
Figure 4

Invasive breast cancers (IBCs) are thought to evolve through a nonobligatory series of increasingly abnormal “stages,” referred to as hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and carcinoma in situ over long periods of time, probably decades in most cases. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the main type of carcinoma in situ in the breast (80%–90%) and a late stage of breast cancer evolution. Many types of evidence support the hypothesis that DCIS are the immediate precursor of IBCs, including points of histological continuity (right photomicrograph).

There have been many studies of the biological and molecular features of DCIS, especially during the past 30–40 years. For the most part, nearly everything known about DCIS was studied first in IBC (4,33–36). Surprisingly, we learned that the tumor cells of DCIS and IBC are highly similar at the cellular and molecular levels, even though one is invasive and the other is not (12,15,34,37–40). The similarities extend even to global gene expression profiles where DCIS has recently been classified into luminal, basal, and erbB2 intrinsic molecular subtypes that were originally defined in microarray studies of IBC (21). Obviously, however, there must be biological differences between the tumor cells of DCIS and IBC that are responsible for invasion, but they have been surprisingly difficult to identify so far. Relatively recently, we learned that adjacent stromal cells must cooperate with tumor cells for invasion to occur, and that invasive tumors have many similarities with healing wounds (15,41–44). Investigators are currently working hard to determine the cellular and molecular mechanisms of these epithelial–stromal interactions.

It would be very useful to know the natural history of DCIS, including how it develops, whether it will progress to IBC, and when (14–16). We know that some DCIS progress in an average lifespan because nearly all IBCs are found intermingled with genetically similar DCIS, which they evolved from (21). We do not know the proportion of DCIS overall that progress to IBC because they are either detected and excised or, unfortunately, not detected at all. However, there are a few small clinical follow-up studies of patients with DCIS that were originally misdiagnosed as benign, so they were not completely excised surgically, suggesting that at least a third, and possibly more, eventually progress to IBC if undetected (29,45–48).

If detected, current therapy for DCIS is actually quite effective, although there is still much room for improvement (11,19,20,49). Better methods of detection, and improved access to them, would be highly beneficial. New methods that precisely identify the boundaries of DCIS would enable surgeons to completely excise them, eliminating local recurrences (19). A deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms of invasion could lead to new therapeutic strategies to treat DCIS, or prevent it from developing, as well as new methods to determine the likelihood of progression, so therapy could be individualized. This symposium will review the state-of-the-science regarding the detection, treatment, and scientific knowledge of DCIS.

References

1.
Osborne
MP
Harris
JR
Lippman
ME
Morrow
M
Osborne
CK
Harris
JRLM
Morrow
M
Hellman
S
Osborne
CK
,
Breast anatomy and development.
Diseases of the Breast
,
2004
3rd ed
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins
(pg.
3
-
14
trans.
2.
Allred
DC
Silverstein
ML
,
Biological characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast
,
2002
2nd ed
Philadelphia, PA: Lipincott
Williams and Wilkins
(pg.
37
-
48
)
3.
Wellings
RR
Jensen
HM
,
On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast
J Natl Cancer Inst
,
1973
, vol.
50
5
(pg.
1111
-
1118
)
4.
Allred
DC
Harris
JR
Lippman
ME
Morrow
M
Osborne
CK
,
Biological features of human premalignant breast disease and the progression to cancer
Diseases of the Breast
,
2009
4th ed
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
(pg.
323
-
334
)
5.
Cheatle
GL
Cutler
M
Cheatle
GL
Cutler
M
,
Malignant epithelial neoplasia. Carcinoma. The precancerous or potentially carcinomatous state
Tumours of the Breast
,
1926
1st ed
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott
(pg.
161
-
332
)
6.
Foote
FW
Stewart
FW
,
Comparative studies of cancerous versus noncancerous breasts
Ann Surg
,
1945
, vol.
121
1
(pg.
6
-
53
197–222
7.
Page
DL
Rogers
LW
Page
DL
Anderson
TJ
,
Carcinoma in situ (CIS)
Diagnostic Histopathology of the Breast
,
1987
1st ed
New York, NY
Churchill Livingston
(pg.
157
-
174
)
8.
Wellings
SR
Jensen
HM
Marcum
RG
,
An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions
J Natl Cancer Inst
,
1975
, vol.
55
2
(pg.
231
-
273
)
9.
Muir
R
,
The evolution of carcinoma of the mamma
J Pathol Bacteriol
,
1941
, vol.
LII
2
(pg.
155
-
172
)
10.
Fechner
RE
Silverstein
ML
,
History of ductal carcinoma in situ
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast
,
2002
2nd ed
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
(pg.
3
-
16
)
11.
Morrow
M
Harris
JR
Harris
JR
Lippman
ME
Morrow
M
Osborne
CK
,
Ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasive carcinoma
Diseases of the Breast
,
2004
3rd ed
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
(pg.
521
-
537
)
12.
Allred
DC
Mohsin
SK
Fuqua
SA
,
Histological and biological evolution of human premalignant breast disease
Endocr Relat Cancer
,
2001
, vol.
8
1
(pg.
47
-
61
)
13.
Dalgin
GS
Alexe
G
Scanfeld
D
et al.
,
Portraits of breast cancer progression
BMC Bioinformatics
,
2007
, vol.
8
pg.
291
14.
Erbas
B
Provenzano
E
Armes
J
Gertig
D
,
The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review
Breast Cancer Res Treat
,
2006
, vol.
97
2
(pg.
135
-
144
)
15.
Kuerer
HM
Albarracin
CT
Yang
WT
et al.
,
Ductal carcinoma in situ: state of the science and roadmap to advance the field
J Clin Oncol
,
2009
, vol.
27
2
(pg.
279
-
288
)
16.
Polyak
K
,
Breast cancer: origins and evolution
J Clin Invest
,
2007
, vol.
117
11
(pg.
3155
-
3163
)
17.
Schnitt
SJ
Silen
W
Sadowsky
NL
Connolly
JL
Harris
JR
,
Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast
N Engl J Med
,
1988
, vol.
318
14
(pg.
898
-
903
)
18.
Ernster
VL
Barclay
J
,
Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma
Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
,
1997
, vol.
22
(pg.
151
-
156
)
19.
Silverstein
MJ
Lagios
MD
Groshen
S
et al.
,
The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
N Engl J Med
,
1999
, vol.
340
19
(pg.
1455
-
1461
)
20.
Solin
LJ
Kurtz
J
Forquet
A
et al.
,
Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
J Clin Oncol
,
1996
, vol.
14
3
(pg.
754
-
763
)
21.
Allred
DC
Wu
Y
Mao
S
et al.
,
Ductal carcinoma in situ and the emergence of diversity during breast cancer evolution
Clin Cancer Res.
,
2008
, vol.
14
2
(pg.
370
-
378
)
22.
Shoker
BS
Sloane
JP
,
DCIS grading schemes and clinical implications
Histopathology
,
1999
, vol.
35
5
(pg.
393
-
400
)
23.
Tavassoli
FA
Schitt
SJ
Hoefler
H
et al.
Tavassoli
FA
Devillee
P
,
Intraductal proliferative lesions
Pathology & Genetics. Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs
,
2003
Lyon, France
IARC Press
(pg.
63
-
73
)
24.
Elston
EW
Ellis
IO
,
Method for grading breast cancer
J Clin Pathol
,
1993
, vol.
46
2
(pg.
189
-
190
)
25.
Rakha
EA
El-Sayed
ME
Lee
AH
et al.
,
Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma
J Clin Oncol
,
2008
, vol.
26
19
(pg.
3153
-
3158
)
26.
Bernstein
L
Silverstein
ML
,
The epidemiology of breast carcinoma in situ
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast
,
2002
2nd ed
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
(pg.
22
-
34
)
27.
Dupont
WD
Page
DL
,
Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease
N Engl J Med
,
1985
, vol.
312
3
(pg.
146
-
151
)
28.
Page
DL
,
Cancer risk assessment in benign breast biopsies
Human Pathol
,
1986
, vol.
17
9
(pg.
871
-
874
)
29.
Sanders
ME
Schuyler
PA
Dupont
WD
Page
DL
,
The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up
Cancer
,
2005
, vol.
103
12
(pg.
2481
-
2484
)
30.
O’Connell
P
Pekkel
V
Fuqua
SAW
Osborne
CK
Allred
DC
,
Loss-of-heterozygosity analysis in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci
J Natl Cancer Inst
,
1998
90
(pg.
697
-
703
)
31.
Allred
DC
Medina
D
,
The relevance of mouse models to the development and progression of human breast cancer
J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia
,
2008
13
(pg.
279
-
288
)
32.
Miller
FR
,
Xenograft models of premalignant breast disease
J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia
,
2000
, vol.
5
4
(pg.
379
-
391
)
33.
Bobrow
LG
Happerfield
LC
Gregory
WM
Springall
RD
Millis
RR
,
The classification of ductal carcinoma in situ and its association with biological markers
Semin Diag Pathol
,
1994
, vol.
11
3
(pg.
199
-
207
)
34.
Gupta
SK
Douglas-Jones
AG
Morgan
JM
Mansel
RE
,
The clinical behavior of breast carcinoma is probably determined at the preinvasive stage (ductal carcinoma in situ)
Cancer
,
1997
, vol.
80
9
(pg.
1740
-
1745
)
35.
Moreno
A
Lloveras
B
Figueras
A
et al.
,
Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between histologic classifications and biologic markers
Mod Pathol
,
1997
, vol.
10
11
(pg.
1088
-
1092
)
36.
Poller
DN
Silverstein
MJ
Galea
M
et al.
,
Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a proposal for a new simplified histological classification association between cellular proliferation and c-erbB-2 protein expression
Mod Pathol
,
1994
, vol.
7
2
(pg.
257
-
262
)
37.
Ma
XJ
Salunga
R
Tuggle
JT
et al.
,
Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
,
2003
, vol.
100
10
(pg.
5974
-
5979
)
38.
Porter
D
Lahti-Domenici
J
Keshaviah
A
et al.
,
Molecular markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
Mol Cancer Res.
,
2003
, vol.
1
5
(pg.
362
-
375
)
39.
Castro
NP
Osorio
CA
Torres
C
et al.
,
Evidence that molecular changes in cells occur before morphological alterations during the progression of breast ductal carcinoma
Breast Cancer Res.
,
2008
, vol.
10
5
pg.
R87
40.
Hannemann
J
Velds
A
Halfwerk
JB
Kreike
B
Peterse
JL
van de Vijver
MJ
,
Classification of ductal carcinoma in situ by gene expression profiling
Breast Cancer Res.
,
2006
, vol.
8
5
pg.
R61
41.
Allinen
M
Beroukhim
R
Cai
L
et al.
,
Molecular characterization of the tumor microenvironment in breast cancer
Cancer Cell.
,
2004
, vol.
6
1
(pg.
17
-
32
)
42.
Kalluri
R
Zeisberg
M
,
Fibroblasts in cancer
Nat Rev Cancer
,
2006
, vol.
6
5
(pg.
392
-
401
)
43.
Park
CC
Bissell
MJ
Barcellos-Hoff
MH
,
The influence of the microenvironment on the malignant phenotype
Mol Med Today
,
2000
, vol.
6
8
(pg.
324
-
329
)
44.
Polyak
K
Hu
M
,
Do myoepithelial cells hold the key for breast tumor progression?
J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia
,
2005
, vol.
10
3
(pg.
231
-
247
)
45.
Bestill
WL
Jr
Rosen
PP
Lieberman
PH
Robbins
GF
,
Intraductal carcinoma: long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone
JAMA
,
1978
, vol.
239
18
(pg.
1863
-
1867
)
46.
Eusebi
V
Feudale
E
Foschini
MP
et al.
,
Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast
Sem Diag Pathol
,
1994
, vol.
11
(pg.
223
-
235
)
47.
Page
DL
Dupont
WD
Rogers
LW
Landenberger
M
,
Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only
Cancer
,
1982
, vol.
49
4
(pg.
751
-
758
)
48.
Rosen
PP
Braun
DW
Jr
Kinne
DE
,
The clinical significance of preinvasive breast carcinomas
Cancer
,
1980
, vol.
46
(pg.
919
-
925
)
49.
O’Sullivan
MJ
Morrow
M
,
Ductal carcinoma in situ—current management
Surg Clin North Am.
,
2007
, vol.
87
2
(pg.
333
-
351
viii

Funding

This work was partially supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.