Ductal Carcinoma In Situ for Surgeons — Upgrade Rule, B-17/B-24, EORTC 15-Year, 2 mm Margins, Sentinel-Node Discipline, Endocrine Choice and the Surveillance Frontier

The one-line answer

Ductal carcinoma in situ is a non-invasive, non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer that accounts for 15 to 25% of all breast-cancer diagnoses — most cases never progress to invasion, yet one in four core-biopsy diagnoses hides invasion already. The surgeon's DCIS job is upgrade-aware diagnosis (25.9% pooled underestimation with named predictors), complete excision to a 2 mm standard with whole-breast irradiation, sentinel-node discipline (mastectomy yes, conservation no), endocrine therapy for receptor-positive disease, and an honest surveillance conversation for low-risk DCIS where local control — never survival — is the currency.^[17][10][9]

A 54-year-old woman with screen-detected calcifications and core-biopsy low-grade DCIS walks the whole topic in one patient: quote the upgrade rule before quoting anything else, plan excision to 2 mm with a radiotherapy discussion, omit the sentinel node if conservation is planned, offer endocrine therapy with its toxicity trade, and fence any surveillance talk to low-risk criteria with explicit uncertainty.^{[10][9][12][13]}

Definition and natural history — the non-obligate precursor

• DCIS is a non-invasive non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer — confined within the ducts, capable of progression, never committed to it.^[14]
• It accounts for 15 to 25% of all breast-cancer diagnoses, and systematic screening has greatly increased the incidence of this precursor — the epidemiologic reason every screening programme manufactures DCIS dilemmas.^[17]
• Most cases of DCIS do not progress to invasive cancer — the first sentence of every honest consent, and the biological fact that makes de-escalation thinkable.^[17]
• A substantial number of lesions will never form a health hazard, particularly slow-growing low-grade DCIS — the LORD premise, and the reason grade anchors every management fork below.^[15]
• Treatment strategies, including surgery, radiotherapy, and optional endocrine therapy, decrease the risk of local events but have no effect on survival outcomes — so every DCIS recommendation is a local-control discussion, and any survival claim is a fabrication until proven otherwise.^[17]

Diagnosis — the upgrade rule

• The rule first: about one in four DCIS diagnoses at core-needle biopsy (pooled 25.9% across 52 studies and 7350 cases, with 1736 underestimates) represent understaged invasive breast cancer found at excision.^[10]
• The predictors that move an individual up or down: 14-gauge automated devices against 11-gauge vacuum-assisted sampling, high-grade lesions at core biopsy, size over 20 mm on imaging, BI-RADS 4 or 5, mammographic mass pattern, and palpability.^[10]
• Sampling discipline follows directly: vacuum-assisted 11-gauge cores beat automated 14-gauge sampling, and when sampling microcalcifications, underestimation falls as core numbers rise — take more tissue where the disease is hardest to target.^[23]
• The single-centre confirmation sharpens consent: overall core-needle underestimation 27.7%, DCIS underestimates 22.8%, with the same size trend and no difference between masses and microcalcifications (27.9 versus 27.6%).^[23]
• The Alberta surgical cohort grounds the operative plan: upstaging to invasion at surgery in 23%, predicted only by preoperative tumour size — so the wide calcification field on the mammogram is already telling you the upgrade probability.^[22]
• The atypical-ductal-hyperplasia footnote for the core-biopsy clinic: 29.0% upgrade to DCIS and 44.2% to DCIS or invasion — a core ADH result is a surgical referral, not a surveillance finding.^[23]

B-17 — lumpectomy with or without radiation

• The trial, stated exactly: 818 women with localized DCIS and histologically tumor-free margins randomised to lumpectomy or lumpectomy plus 50 Gy, with mean follow-up of 90 months.^[1]
• The result that founded modern practice: noninvasive ipsilateral tumours cut from 13.4 to 8.2%, invasive from 13.4 to 3.9% — and all cohorts benefited regardless of clinical or mammographic characteristics.^[1]
• The benefit proved durable rather than early: virtually unchanged between 5 and 8 years of follow-up, driven by fewer invasive and noninvasive ipsilateral tumours.^[1]
• The humility clause inside the same abstract: locoregional and distant events stayed similar in both arms, and deaths were only infrequently breast-cancer related — local control from the first report, not rescue.^[1]
• The long tail, from Wapnir's pooled B-17/B-24 follow-up at 207 and 163 months: of 490 ipsilateral recurrences, 263 (53.7%) were invasive — and radiation had cut invasive recurrence by 52% in B-17.^[19]

EORTC 10853 — ten and fifteen years

• The European anchor: 1010 women, mostly (71%) mammographically detected DCIS, randomised after complete local excision to nothing further or radiotherapy, followed to a median of 10.5 years.^[3]
• The 10-year result: local-recurrence-free 74% with excision alone against 85% with radiation (hazard ratio 0.53) — DCIS recurrence down 48%, invasive down 42%, with similar low risks of metastases and death in both arms.^[3]
• Radiotherapy's effect was homogeneous: all patient subgroups benefited, across every assessed risk factor — the sentence that blocks cherry-picked omission.^[3]
• The named risk factors for recurrence: young age, symptomatic detection, intermediate or poor differentiation, cribriform or solid growth, doubtful margins, and excision alone — each an independent argument for, never against, adjuvant treatment.^[3]
• Fifteen years hardens the message: 1010 women with DCIS under 5 cm, median follow-up 15.8 years, recurrence risk cut 48% — local-recurrence-free 69% rising to 82%, invasive-recurrence-free 84% rising to 90%.^[4]
• At 15 years almost one in three nonirradiated women had recurred — yet recurrence differences produced no difference in breast-cancer-specific survival (HR 1.07) or overall survival (HR 1.02).^[4]
• The sting inside the reassurance: invasive recurrence carried far worse survival (BCSS HR 17.66, OS HR 5.17) than no recurrence, while DCIS-only recurrence did not raise mortality — preventing invasion matters even when preventing death cannot be shown.^[4]
• The four-trial meta-analysis agrees: 3665 patients, recurrence roughly 60% lower with radiation, no difference in distant metastases or death — with high-grade lesions and positive margins gaining most.^[21]

UK/ANZ DCIS and B-24 — the endocrine half

• The factorial design to state precisely: 1701 women with completely excised DCIS randomised to radiotherapy and tamoxifen, radiotherapy alone, tamoxifen alone, or neither — with radiation at 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks and tamoxifen at 20 mg daily for 5 years.^[5]
• The radiotherapy half: fewer new breast events overall, fewer ipsilateral invasive and DCIS events, but no effect on contralateral cancer — radiation protects the treated breast only.^[5]
• The tamoxifen mirror image: fewer new events overall, fewer recurrent ipsilateral DCIS and contralateral tumours, but no effect on ipsilateral invasive disease — endocrine therapy protects both breasts except where radiation already owns the outcome.^[5]
• B-24 generalises further because it did not cherry-pick margins: 1804 women including involved margins, lumpectomy plus 50 Gy with placebo or tamoxifen 20 mg daily for 5 years, median follow-up 74 months — events 8.2 versus 13.4% at 5 years.^[2]
• The B-24 invasive-event anatomy at 5 years: 4.1% cumulative, split 2.1% ipsilateral, 1.8% contralateral, 0.2% regional or distant — with benefit holding even when margins contained tumour and with comedonecrosis.^[2]
• The two-trial synthesis (B-24 plus UK/ANZ): tamoxifen cuts overall recurrence 29% (33% with surgery plus radiation), lowering ipsilateral invasive and contralateral in-situ relapse — with no mortality effect, so endocrine therapy is event prevention, not life extension.^[6]
• The Petrelli bottom line for receptor-positive disease: surgery with radiation and tamoxifen is the treatment of choice for estrogen-receptor-positive DCIS.^[6]

RTOG 9804 — omitting radiation in good-risk disease

• The good-risk fence, quoted exactly: mammographically detected low- or intermediate-grade DCIS under 2.5 cm — the population in whom omission is even discussable, with the trial's own margin bar at 3 mm or wider.^[7]
• The trial's honesty about itself: designed for 1790 patients, closed early for low accrual with 636 entered from the United States and Canada, tamoxifen optional at 62% use.^[7]
• The result at 7 years: 2 local failures with radiation against 19 with observation — 0.9% versus 6.7% (HR 0.11): low with observation, significantly lower with radiation.^[7]
• The toxicity price of that extra control: acute grade 1-2 toxicity in 30% versus 76%, grade 3-4 in 4.0% versus 4.2%; late grade 3 toxicity in 0.7% — so omission spares mostly low-grade harm, not catastrophe.^[7]
• The timeline warning that fences every omission: longer follow-up is planned because the failure timeline in this setting seems protracted — a 7-year readout cannot close a 15-year disease.^[7]
• The population-level refinement: across 32,144 SEER DCIS patients (63% irradiated), 10-year breast-cancer mortality ran 1.8% versus 2.1% — with survival gain concentrating in higher grade, younger age and larger tumours, so radiation decisions can be tailored to patient, biology and prognostic score.^[20]

IBIS-II DCIS — anastrozole against tamoxifen

• The trial, stated exactly: 2980 postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS from 236 centres in 14 countries, randomised to 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen daily for 5 years.^[8]
• The verdict at 144 recurrences: no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 versus 77) — non-inferiority established, superiority not shown, deaths 33 versus 36 with no cause favouring either arm.^[8]
• The choice therefore turns on toxicity, and the profiles genuinely differ: more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia and strokes with anastrozole — against more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms and deep-vein thromboses with tamoxifen.^[8]
• The exam-ready indication: anastrozole is another option for postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, most appropriate where tamoxifen is contraindicated — efficacy equivalent, tolerability personal.^[8]

Margins — the 2 mm standard

• The evidence base first, because examiners ask what the number rests on: a multidisciplinary consensus panel's meta-analysis of margin width and recurrence from 20 studies and 7883 patients.^[9]
• The rule in one line: negative margins halve recurrence against positive margins defined as ink on DCIS — ink-positive is the one margin status that always mandates more surgery.^[9]
• The number: a 2 mm margin minimises recurrence against smaller negative margins, while more widely clear margins do not significantly decrease it further — 2 mm is the standard for DCIS with whole-breast irradiation, not the minimum of a sliding scale.^[9]
• The restraint that follows: negative margins under 2 mm alone are not an indication for mastectomy — weigh the other recurrence factors with clinical judgment rather than reflex re-excision.^[9]
• The service payoff: the 2 mm standard holds recurrence low while cutting re-excisions, improving cosmesis and lowering costs — a guideline that helps the next patient as well as this one.^[9]
• The cross-trial corroboration: doubtful margins carried a 1.84-fold recurrence hazard in EORTC, and positive-margin, high-grade disease gained most from radiation in meta-analysis — margin status and grade travel together in every plan.^[3][21]

Axilla — sentinel-node discipline

• The ASCO rule, reaffirmed without change in 2017 after reviewing eight new publications: the 2014 recommendations stand, and DCIS sits explicitly inside them.^[11]
• Conservation means no sentinel biopsy: DCIS with planned breast conservation should not undergo sentinel-node surgery — the operation that needs no staging gets none.^[11]
• Mastectomy means sentinel biopsy may be offered: DCIS with planned mastectomy is an explicit indication — because the removed breast closes the mapping window, and occult invasion can no longer be staged afterwards.^[11]
• The Dutch cohort validates omission in practice: sentinel biopsy should no longer be performed for core-biopsy DCIS undergoing conservation — metastases in only 2% of pure DCIS, against 15.6% where invasion was found, and delayed biopsy remains possible if excision reveals invasion.^[12]
• The numbers behind the discipline: sentinel biopsy in 51.8% of 910 patients, with 94.5% node-negative — but 7% metastases after mastectomy against 3.5% after conservation, tracking the upstaging gradient.^[12]
• The overuse audit every unit should run: sentinel biopsy in 77% of Alberta DCIS overall and 61% of conservation cases, predicted by tumour size and surgeon habit — while no patient with pure DCIS had a positive sentinel node, and clinically significant positives in conservation stayed low enough to support omitting upfront surgery.^[22]
• The background axillary rules travel with the patient: no dissection without sentinel metastases, and no dissection for one to two positive sentinel nodes with conservation plus whole-breast radiotherapy — while mastectomy with positive sentinel nodes is still offered dissection.^[11]

Conservation versus mastectomy — choosing the operation

• Conservation is the default whenever margins and cosmesis allow: 15-year breast-cancer death across B-17/B-24 conservation arms ran 2.3 to 4.7% — prognosis after breast conservation for DCIS remains excellent whichever adjuvants follow.^[19]
• Mastectomy earns its place by extent, not biology: large or multicentric disease, persistently involved margins, unfavourable breast-to-disease ratio, or informed patient preference — with preoperative size the measurable driver (mastectomy in 37.6% of the Alberta cohort, predicted by size).^[22]
• Grade reshapes the operation discussion: invasive recurrence arrives at 76 months from high-grade disease against 131 from low or intermediate grade — high-grade DCIS argues for the most complete local treatment the breast allows.^[18]
• The recurrence-salvage arithmetic favours maximal first treatment: salvage mastectomy after recurrence ran 13% in irradiated women against 19% without radiation — conservation plus radiation preserves the breast twice over.^[4]
• The contralateral footnote for the anxious patient: contralateral cancers at 15 years ran around 10% regardless of ipsilateral treatment (7.3% with tamoxifen) — the opposite breast needs surveillance, not surgery, and endocrine therapy trims that risk.^[19]

Surveillance frontier — COMET, LORIS, LORD

• The definition first: DCIS as a non-invasive non-obligate precursor is precisely what makes surveillance thinkable — and with guideline-concordant outcomes rivalling prostate cancer, the prostate surveillance precedent is explicitly invoked.^[14]
• COMET, stated exactly: a prospective randomised noninferiority trial in 995 women aged 40 or over with hormone-receptor-positive grade 1-2 DCIS across 100 United States cooperative-group sites, 2017 to 2023 — active monitoring with 6-monthly imaging and examination against guideline-concordant surgery with or without radiation.^[13]
• The 2-year result: ipsilateral invasive cancer 4.2% with monitoring against 5.9% with standard care (difference −1.7%, upper confidence limit 0.95%) — non-inferior within the 5% bound, with invasive tumour characteristics no different between groups.^[13]
• The examined caveats travel with the headline: median follow-up only 36.9 months against a disease whose invasive recurrences peak at 60 months — and 82 monitored women crossed to surgery, so monitoring is surveillance with an exit, not surveillance instead of surgery.^[13]
• The trial's own framing from its protocol: standard-care patients receive surgery with radiation when appropriate, monitored patients receive surgery only on identification of invasion — both arms offered endocrine therapy, with 1200 patients originally planned.^[14]
• LORD fences the lowest-risk corner: asymptomatic, screen-detected, pure low-grade DCIS on vacuum-assisted calcification biopsies only, in 1240 women — standard treatment against surveillance with annual mammography for 10 years and a 10-year invasive-free primary endpoint.^[15]
• The LORIS-eligible reality check from excised disease: among 2394 women, 401 met LORIS criteria (screen-detected calcifications, no discharge, minimal family history, non-high-grade) — yet 10-year invasive recurrence without radiation still ran 6.0%, so additional criteria are needed to find women needing no intervention.^[16]
• The upgrade fact that fences every frontier: about one in five core non-high-grade DCIS cases harbours invasion at excision — surveillance without excision starts with a one-in-five misclassification debt.^[16]
• The review's verdict, which is also the viva answer: active surveillance is being evaluated as a possible new option for low-risk DCIS — evaluated, not established, with well-designed risk-based de-escalation studies still the major need.^[17]

Grade and time — the long tail

• The West Midlands screen-detected cohort: 840 noninvasive cancers on the screening system, 700 DCIS followed a median 183 months — 102 (14.6%) recurred locally, and 49 (48%) of recurrences were invasive.^[18]
• Timing splits by biology: noninvasive recurrence at a median 15 months, invasive at 60 — and recurrence at 180 months doubles that at 60, so short follow-up misses significant numbers of events, especially invasive ones.^[18]
• Grade sets the clock: invasive recurrence at 76 months from high-grade DCIS against 131 from low or intermediate grade — the number that justifies longer surveillance for high-grade disease even after complete treatment.^[18]
• The mortality coda from Wapnir: invasive recurrence raised death risk (HR 1.75, with 22 of 39 post-recurrence deaths from breast cancer) while DCIS recurrence did not — yet absolute 15-year breast-cancer death stayed 2.3 to 4.7% across all arms.^[19]

Counselling and follow-up — consent with anxiety in the room

• Open with the Delaloge pair, always together: 15 to 25% of diagnoses, most never progress; treatment cuts local events with no survival effect — benefit and limit in one breath.^[17]
• Consent the upgrade before consenting the operation: one in four core DCIS diagnoses understaged, worse with large, high-grade, mass-forming or palpable disease — the excision may change the diagnosis, and the plan must survive that change.^[10]
• Consent the axilla by operation, not by anxiety: sentinel biopsy with mastectomy, omitted with conservation and retrievable later if invasion appears — staging follows the surgery, never the fear.^[11][12]
• Expect the LORIS-generation consultation: 80% of eligible women agreed to randomisation, yet over 40% carried high baseline anxiety — altruism and best-treatment belief against fear of randomisation and others' influence, with low eligible numbers and patient preference as the staff-side barriers.^[24]
• Close with the review's prescription: given variable natural history, shared decision-making for personalised treatment is the most appropriate course — and set LORD-grade follow-up (annual mammography for a decade) whatever path she chooses.^[17][15]

Exam Synthesis and Fence Map — what this topic owns

• This topic owns DCIS as a surgical disease: definition, upgrade-aware diagnosis, B-17, EORTC 10- and 15-year, UK/ANZ factorial, B-24, RTOG 9804, IBIS-II endocrine choice, 2 mm margins, sentinel-node discipline, conservation-versus-mastectomy reasoning, COMET/LORIS/LORD surveillance, grade-time dynamics, and anxious-patient counselling.^[17][13]
• The companion screening-assessment topic owns how DCIS is found: programmes, intervals, tomosynthesis, dense breasts, BI-RADS reading, triple assessment and recall craft — referred, never repeated here.
• The companion breast-cancer topic owns what happens when invasion is confirmed: receptors, staging, conservation-versus-mastectomy for invasive disease, the positive axilla, systemics and HER2 escalation — referred, never repeated here.
• Deliberately unfenced as numbers: boost and hypofractionation schedules, contralateral risk-reducing surgery figures, and assay-based recurrence scores — absent from fetched abstracts, so absent from this topic.

Exam pearls — the one-liners that score

• Non-obligate precursor; 15 to 25% of diagnoses; most never progress; treatment cuts local events, never improves survival.^[14][17]
• One in four core DCIS upgrades; worse with 14-gauge sampling, high grade, over 20 mm, mass, palpability.^[10]
• B-17 13.4 to 3.9 invasive; EORTC 69 to 82 at 15 years; B-24 8.2 versus 13.4; RTOG 0.9 versus 6.7; COMET 4.2 versus 5.9.^{[1][4][2][7][13]}
• 2 mm margins with irradiation; ink on DCIS always re-excised; under 2 mm alone never mandates mastectomy.^[9]
• Sentinel node with mastectomy, never with conservation; tamoxifen 20 mg or anastrozole 1 mg for 5 years in receptor-positive disease.^[11][5][8]
• Invasive recurrence kills, DCIS recurrence does not; high grade recurs invasively at 76 months, low grade at 131.^[19][18]

References24ShowHide

1. [1]Fisher B, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol, 1998.PMID 9469327
2. [2]Fisher B, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 1999.PMID 10376613
3. [3]Bijker N, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853--a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol, 2006.PMID 16801628
4. [4]Donker M, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma In Situ: 15-year recurrence rates and outcome after a recurrence, from the EORTC 10853 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol, 2013.PMID 24043739
5. [5]Cuzick J, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol, 2011.PMID 21145284
6. [6]Petrelli F, et al. Tamoxifen added to radiotherapy and surgery for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a meta-analysis of 2 randomized trials. Radiother Oncol, 2011.PMID 21411161
7. [7]McCormick B, et al. RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol, 2015.PMID 25605856
8. [8]Forbes JF, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2016.PMID 26686313
9. [9]Morrow M, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery With Whole-Breast Irradiation in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. J Clin Oncol, 2016.PMID 27528719
10. [10]Brennan ME, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology, 2011.PMID 21493791
11. [11]Lyman GH, et al. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol, 2017.PMID 27937089
12. [12]van Roozendaal LM, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted in DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2016.PMID 27083179
13. [13]Hwang ES, et al. Active Monitoring With or Without Endocrine Therapy for Low-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: The COMET Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2025.PMID 39665585
14. [14]Hwang ES, et al. The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open, 2019.PMID 30862637
15. [15]Elshof LE, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - The LORD study. Eur J Cancer, 2015.PMID 26025767
16. [16]Pilewskie M, et al. Women with Low-Risk DCIS Eligible for the LORIS Trial After Complete Surgical Excision: How Low Is Their Risk After Standard Therapy? Ann Surg Oncol, 2016.PMID 27766556
17. [17]Delaloge S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: finding the balance between overtreatment and undertreatment. Lancet, 2024.PMID 38735296
18. [18]Wallis MG, et al. The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS. Br J Cancer, 2012.PMID 22516949
19. [19]Wapnir IL, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2011.PMID 21398619
20. [20]Sagara Y, et al. Patient Prognostic Score and Associations With Survival Improvement Offered by Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study. J Clin Oncol, 2016.PMID 26834064
21. [21]Viani GA, et al. Breast-conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Radiat Oncol, 2007.PMID 17683529
22. [22]Chin-Lenn L, et al. Predictors of treatment with mastectomy, use of sentinel lymph node biopsy and upstaging to invasive cancer in patients diagnosed with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol, 2014.PMID 24046105
23. [23]Houssami N, et al. Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer, 2007.PMID 17186530
24. [24]Wheelwright S, et al. Recruiting women with ductal carcinoma in situ to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from the LORIS study. Trials, 2023.PMID 37838682