Assessment of the usefulness of prognostic Van Nuys Prognostic Index in the treatment in ductal carcinoma in situ in 15-year observation

Ductal carcinoma in situ, a marginal fraction of the mammary gland diseases, is recognized in 25% of breast cancers detected with mammographic screening. The aim of the study was to assess the prognostic value of Van Nuys Prognostic Index, serving to determine the method of treatment according to the recurrence risk. From the 737 of cases of DCIS detection patients treated in our department in the years 1996–2011. The remaining 525 patients whose treatment began from excision of local DCIS and whose further course of treatment was determined after histopathological examination, who were left for observation, treated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy or mastectomy, were qualified for the assessment of mentioned index (Online Appendix 1- Figure S1). The 5-, 10- and 15- year disease recurrence-free survival for the group of 525 patients was 88%, 74% and 62%, respectively. The percentage of 5-, 10- and 15-year disease recurrence-free survival in patients treated in compliance with the VNP Index in individual risk groups did not differ in a statistically significant way. In the low-risk group the percentage of recurrences after local excision, after 5, 10 and 15 years of observation amounted to 8.8%, 22.8% and 28.8%. In patients from this group, the recurrence risk after breast conserving treatment and mastectomy was 2% and 0%, respectively. VNP Index is not an optimal tool for patients with DCIS. It can be helpful only in some clinically difficult cases as one of methods of assessing the risk of recurrence.

Assessment of the Usefulness of Prognostic Van Nuys Prognostic Index in the Treatment in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in 15-year Observation

Ductal carcinoma in situ, a marginal fraction of the mammary gland diseases, is recognized in 25% of breast cancers detected with mammographic screening. The aim of the study was to assess the prognostic value of Van Nuys Prognostic Index, serving to determine the method of treatment according to the recurrence risk From the 737 of cases of DCIS detection patients treated in our department in the years 1996–2011. The remaining 525 patients whose treatment began from excision of local DCIS and whose further course of treatment was determined after histopathological examination, who were left for observation, treated with radiation therapy of breast part left or mastectomy, were qualified for the assessment of mentioned index. The 5-, 10- and 15- year disease recurrence-free survival for the group of 525 patients was 88%, 74% and 62%, respectively. The percentage of 5-, 10- and 15-year disease recurrence-free survival in patients treated in compliance with the VNP Index in individual risk groups did not differ in a statistically significant way. In the low-risk group the percentage of recurrences after local excision, after 5, 10 and 15 years of observation amounted to 8.8%, 22.8% and 28.8%. In patients from this group, the recurrence risk after breast conserving treatment and mastectomy was 2% and 0%, respectively. VNP Index is not an optimal tool for patients with DCIS. It can be helpful only in some clinically difficult cases as one of methods of assessing the risk of recurrence.

Validation of the Van Nuys Prognostic Index in 737 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated at Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.

e12603 Background: To assess the value of the Van Nuys Prognostic Index (VNPI) used in Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology (MSCNRIO) to select the most adequate method of the treatment of DCIS patients. Methods: The database covered 737 subsequent DCIS patients treated in MSCNRIO in the years 1996 -2011. The results of the treatment with and without compliance with the VNPI index were compared. Results: In the group of 737 patients 66 (9%) failures were reported. There were 4 (0.5%) deaths due to DCIS progression. After 15 years of observation of patients treated in compliance with VNPI, the percentage of failures after local excision (4-6 VNPI points), breast conserving treatment (7-9 VNPI points) and mastectomy (10-12 VNPI points) was 29%, 21% and 9%, respectively. No differences in the overall survival was observed. In patients with 4-6 VNPI points the percentage of recurrences in the group treated in compliance with the VNPI (without radiotherapy) was 29% while in the group treated without compliance with the VNPI (with radiotherapy) - 2%. Conclusions: The Van Nuys prognostic index (VNPI) does not seem to be an ideal tool in patients with DCIS. It shows too high percentage of recurrences in the low risk group (VNPI of 4, 5 or 6 points), treated exclusively with a sparing surgery. Almost all patients after surgical excision should be irradiated.

Concordance of Van-Nuys Prognostic Index, Memorial Sloan Kettering Breast Cancer nomogram and Oncotype Dx DCIS scores in prediction of ductal carcinoma in situ(DCIS) recurrence risk.

56 Background: Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has a wide spectrum of bioagressiveness. Three models used to assess recurrence risk (RR) of DCIS include: the Van-Nuys Prognostic Index (VN), Memorial Sloan Kettering Breast Cancer Nomogram (MN) and Oncotype Dx DCIS Score (OD; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA). The aim of our study was to evaluate the concordance between these RR models. Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective chart review was performed on 37 consecutive patients at our institution with DCIS from 12/2011-4/2015 who underwent breast conservation surgery and in whom an OD was obtained. The OD and ‘any recurrent event at 10-years’ scores were used to stratify patients into low risk (LR; OD DCIS score <39/<17%), intermediate risk (IR; 39-54/17-24%) and high risk (HR; >54/>24%), as outlined in the original OD study. The ‘10-year RR’ scores from MN were stratified using the same percentile breakdown as OD. The VN were stratified into LR (4-6), IR (7-9) and HR (>9) groups based on the updated VN study’s guideline. Pathologic slides were re-reviewed by one pathologist blinded to OD score to determine size and margin width based on the protocol outlined in the original VN paper. The three scores for each patient were compared. Results: Eleven patients (29.7%) had concordance between all three scores and all were LR. In 10.8% of patients, there was no concordance between the three scores. The concordance between the OD and VN, OD and MN, and VN and MN was 64.9%, 48.6% and 35.1%, respectively. Conclusions: In evaluating RR, determining LR may have the greatest implication since this group may be the least likely to benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Concordance between all three models was seen only in LR patients. All patients who were LR by VN were also LR by OD and MN. Determining a VN initially may help guide additional testing. The added value of OD may be primarily in patients who are not LR by VN. The MN seems to be of limited value in this study. Larger studies assessing these relationships and their outcomes in predicting potential RR in DCIS are warranted.