Learning to distinguish progressive and non-progressive ductal carcinoma in situ.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive breast neoplasia that accounts for 25% of all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed annually. Neoplastic cells in DCIS are confined to the ductal system of the breast, although they can escape and progress to invasive breast cancer in a subset of patients. A key concern of DCIS is overtreatment, as most patients screened for DCIS and in whom DCIS is diagnosed will not go on to exhibit symptoms or die of breast cancer, even if left untreated. However, differentiating low-risk, indolent DCIS from potentially progressive DCIS remains challenging. In this Review, we summarize our current knowledge of DCIS and explore open questions about the basic biology of DCIS, including those regarding how genomic events in neoplastic cells and the surrounding microenvironment contribute to the progression of DCIS to invasive breast cancer. Further, we discuss what information will be needed to prevent overtreatment of indolent DCIS lesions without compromising adequate treatment for high-risk patients.

Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry.

BACKGROUND: The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are commonly used in clinical practice and have recently been extended to include polygenic risk scores (PRS). In addition, BOADICEA has also been extended to include reproductive and lifestyle factors, which were already part of Tyrer-Cuzick model. We conducted a comparative prospective validation of these models after incorporating the recently developed 313-variant PRS. METHODS: Calibration and discrimination of 5-year absolute risk was assessed in a nested case-control sample of 1337 women of European ancestry (619 incident breast cancer cases) aged 23-75 years from the Generations Study. RESULTS: The extended BOADICEA model with reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS was well calibrated across risk deciles; expected-to-observed ratio (E/O) at the highest risk decile :0.97 (95 % CI 0.51 - 1.86) for women younger than 50 years and 1.09 (0.66 - 1.80) for women 50 years or older. Adding reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS to the BOADICEA model improved discrimination modestly in younger women (area under the curve (AUC) 69.7 % vs. 69.1%) and substantially in older women (AUC 64.6 % vs. 56.8%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS showed evidence of overestimation at the highest risk decile: E/O = 1.54(0.81 - 2.92) for younger and 1.73 (1.03 - 2.90) for older women. CONCLUSION: The extended BOADICEA model identified women in a European-ancestry population at elevated breast cancer risk more accurately than the Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS. With the increasing availability of PRS, these analyses can inform choice of risk models incorporating PRS for risk stratified breast cancer prevention among women of European ancestry.