No abstract

Purpose The prognosis of local invasive recurrence (LIR) after prior carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the breast has not been widely studied and existing data are conflicting, especially considering the specific prognosis of this entity, compared to de novo invasive breast cancer (de novo IBC) and with LIR after primary IBC. Methods We designed a retrospective study using data from the specialized Côte d’Or Breast and Gynecological cancer registry, between 1998 and 2015, to compare outcomes between 3 matched groups of patients with localized IBC: patients with LIR following CIS (CIS-LIR), patients with de novo IBC (de novo IBC), and patients with LIR following a first IBC (IBC-LIR). Distant relapse-free (D-RFS), overall survival (OS), clinical, and treatment features between the 3 groups were studied. Results Among 8186 women initially diagnosed with IBC during our study period, we retrieved and matched 49 CIS-LIR to 49 IBC, and 46 IBC-LIR patients. At diagnosis, IBC/LIR in the 3 groups were mainly stage I, grade II, estrogen receptor-positive, and HER2 negative. Metastatic diseases at diagnosis were higher in CIS-LIR group. A majority of patients received adjuvant systemic treatment, with no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of OS or D-RFS. Conclusion LIR after CIS does not appear to impact per se on survival of IBC.

Purpose: The prognosis of local invasive recurrence (LIR) after prior carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the breast has not been widely studied and existing data are conflicting, especially considering the specific prognosis of this entity, compared to de novo invasive breast cancer (de novo IBC) and with LIR after primary IBC. Methods: We designed a retrospective study using data from the specialized Côte d’Or Breast and Gynecological cancer registry, between 1998 and 2015, to compare outcomes between 3 matched groups of patients with localized IBC: patients with LIR following CIS (CIS-LIR), patients with de novo IBC (de novo IBC) and patients with LIR following a first IBC (IBC-LIR). Distant relapse free (D-RFS), overall survival (OS), clinical and treatment features between the 3 groups were studied. Results: Among 8186 women initially diagnosed with IBC during our study period, we retrieved and matched 49 CIS-LIR to 49 IBC, and 46 IBC-LIR patients. At diagnosis, IBC/LIR in the 3 groups were mainly stage I, grade II, estrogen receptor-positive and HER2 negative. Metastatic diseases at diagnosis were higher in CIS-LIR group. A majority of patients received adjuvant systemic treatment, with no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of OS or D-RFS. Conclusion: LIR after CIS does not appear to impact per se on survival of IBC, at least when appropriate adjuvant systemic treatments are prescribed.