Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
In their paper "Efficacy and safety of endocrine therapy (ET) after mastectomy in patients with hormone receptor positive breast ductal carcinoma in situ: retrospective cohort study", Nan Niu et al describe the outcome of patients with DCIS treated by unilateral mastectomy with (n=791) and without (n=216) adjuvant endocrine therapy. This is a retrospective multicentre study with follow-up for at least 5 years.
Whilst this approach (ET post-mastectomy for DCIS) is rarely prescribed in the Western world (as the authors note) because the risk of recurrence of DCIS is very low (as shown in this series), some consider this appropriate for reducing the risk of contralateral breast cancer. This series of patients with unilateral mastectomy for DCIS thus provides more globally applicable information regarding the recommendation for adjuvant ET in the context of a potential reduction in contralateral cancer risk following a diagnosis of DCIS.
791 of the 1007 eligible patients received ET. The disease-free survival of patients in both groups was excellent, with no difference between those with and without ET. There was no difference in overall tumour recurrence, albeit with small numbers in both arms; 4 cases had invasive local recurrence (a comment confirming no radiotherapy had been received would be relevant), 3 had contralateral breast cancer and 12 had distant metastasis in the ET group while 4 cases with distant metastases were recorded in the non-ET group. Thus overall recurrence was low in both groups and the DFS was 98.36% vs. 99.07% between the ET and non-ET groups.
Conversely, adverse events (including fracture and endometrial cancer, but largely musculoskeletal) were seen in 37% of patients receiving ET. The grade of the adverse events is not reported so it is not possible to determine if these are mild or severe.
Strengths
This is a large and novel series of cases of DCIS, with detailed clinicopathological information.
Weaknesses
The authors themselves note that this study is retrospective and with limited follow-up. The number of cases with recurrence is small, as would be expected. It would be important to note, as I presume, that none had radiotherapy.
They have reported that they have included all hormone receptor positive cases. The definition of 'hormone receptor positive" has not been described in further detail, i.e. whether oestrogen and/or progesterone receptor and scoring system and cut-offs applied. It is presumed, therefore, that cases with any degree of receptor positivity are included. It is not apparent therefore whether there were any differences between those with low ER expression vs those with strong uniform reactivity.
All grades of DCIS were included. However, the % of cases (in both arms) with high-grade DCIS is surprisingly low (29% vs 24%); this is markedly different from what one sees, for example in the UK, where approx. 60% of all cases are of high histological grade. Conversely, the % of microinvasion reported is relatively high, particularly when considering the grade of the DCIS; it is well-recognised that microinvasion is much more common in association with high-grade DCIS. However, the Kaplan-Meier curve for disease-free survival of those with microinvasive carcinoma (Fig 2; D) is interesting and appears to show some separation (not significant presumably because of the small numbers not receiving ET).
Overall this is an interesting and thought-provoking manuscript highlighting the excellent outcome of patients with a wide range of DCIS lesions treated with unilateral mastectomy (whether they are in receipt of ET or not) and the high proportion of adverse events in those in receipt of adjuvant endocrine therapy.
