Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Multidisciplinary Management of High-Risk Breast Lesions

  • Risk, Prevention, and Screening (TA Patel, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For years, surgical excision has been the standard of care for women with proliferative lesions such as atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ identified on needle biopsy because of concern of co-existing occult cancer. However, emerging evidence has suggested a more personalized approach of identifying women for whom surgical excision may be appropriate. A number of variables have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of a pathologic upgrade; this affords the opportunity for selective surgical excision. All women with these proliferative lesions, whether diagnosed on needle biopsy or surgical excision, are at increased risk of future breast cancers and derive significant risk reduction with endocrine therapy. Unless contraindicated, all women with atypical hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ should be started on preventive therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Helvie MA, Hessler C, Frank TS, Ikeda DM. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: mammographic appearance and histologic correlation. Radiology. 1991;179(3):759–64. doi:10.1148/radiology.179.3.2027988.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McLaughlin CT, Neal CH, Helvie MA. Is the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy of calcifications different for digital and film-screen mammography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(4):917–22. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11862.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim HS, Han BK, Choo KS, Jeon YH, Kim JH, Choe YH. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications. Kor J Radiol : Off J Kor Radiol Soc. 2005;6(4):214–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(4):860–6. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weigel S, Decker T, Korsching E, Hungermann D, Bocker W, Heindel W. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology. 2010;255(3):738–45. doi:10.1148/radiol.10091173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Neal CH, Coletti MC, Joe A, Jeffries DO, Helvie MA. Does digital mammography increase detection of high-risk breast lesions presenting as calcifications? AJR Am J Roentgen. 2013;201(5):1148–54. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.10195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Glynn CG, Farria DM, Monsees BS, Salcman JT, Wiele KN, Hildebolt CF. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes. Radiology. 2011;260(3):664–70. doi:10.1148/radiol.11110159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9-versus 11-gauge. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(1):229–34. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hong ZJ, Chu CH, Fan HL, Hsu HM, Chen CJ, Chan DC, et al. Factors predictive of breast cancer in open biopsy in cases with atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Eur J Surg Oncol : J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2011;37(9):758–64. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2011.06.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jang M, Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Seong MH, Park IA. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(5):1347–51. doi:10.2214/ajr.07.3643.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(4):1135–41. doi:10.2214/ajr.08.1144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mesurolle B, Perez JC, Azzumea F, Lemercier E, Xie X, Aldis A, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1389–94. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.10864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, Murray MP, Bartella L, Morris EA, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(3):684–90. doi:10.2214/ajr.06.0809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Strigel RM, Eby PR, Demartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Allison KH, Peacock S, et al. Frequency, upgrade rates, and characteristics of high-risk lesions initially identified with breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Georgian-Smith D, Lawton TJ. Calcifications of lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(5):1255–9. doi:10.2214/ajr.176.5.1761255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Purdie CA, McLean D, Stormonth E, Macaskill EJ, McCullough JB, Edwards SL, et al. Management of in situ lobular neoplasia detected on needle core biopsy of breast. J Clin Pathol. 2010;63(11):987–93. doi:10.1136/jcp.2010.081687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Subhawong AP, Subhawong TK, Khouri N, Tsangaris T, Nassar H. Incidental minimal atypical lobular hyperplasia on core needle biopsy: correlation with findings on follow-up excision. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(6):822–8. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181dd8516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scoggins M, Krishnamurthy S, Santiago L, Yang W. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: clinical, radiological, and pathological correlation. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(4):463–70. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2012.08.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stein LF, Zisman G, Rapelyea JA, Schwartz AM, Abell B, Brem RF. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast presenting as a mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(6):1799–801. doi:10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dmytrasz K, Tartter PI, Mizrachy H, Chinitz L, Rosenbaum Smith S, Estabrook A. The significance of atypical lobular hyperplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy. Breast J. 2003;9(1):10–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shah-Khan MG, Geiger XJ, Reynolds C, Jakub JW, Deperi ER, Glazebrook KN. Long-term follow-up of lobular neoplasia (atypical lobular hyperplasia/lobular carcinoma in situ) diagnosed on core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3131–8. doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2534-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Krishnamurthy S, Bevers T, Kuerer H, Yang WT. Multidisciplinary considerations in the management of high-risk breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(2):W132–40. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tavassoli Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Breast and Female Organs. P. Devilee and F. A. Tavassoli, Eds., Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2003.

  24. Jackman RJ, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: can some lesions be defined as probably benign after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum- assisted biopsy, eliminating the recommendation for surgical excision? Radiology. 2002;224(2):548–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Winchester DJ, Bernstein JR, Jeske JM, et al. Upstaging of atypical ductal hyper-plasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. Arch Surg. 2003;138(6):619–22. discussion: 622–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sohn V, Arthurs Z, Herbert G, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: improved accuracy with the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted versus the 14-gauge core biopsy needle. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(9):2497–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Deshaies I, Provencher L, Jacob S, et al. Factors associated with upgrading to malignancy at surgery of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Breast. 2011;20(1):50–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Burak Jr WE, Owens KE, Tighe MB, et al. Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy: histologic underestimation of malignant lesions. Arch Surg. 2000;135(6):700–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Green S, Khalkhali I, Azizollahi E, et al. Excisional biopsy of borderline lesions after large bore vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy—is it necessary? Am Surg. 2011;77(10):1358–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fraser JL, Raza S, Chorny K, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Columnar alteration with prominent apical snouts and secretions: a spectrum of changes frequently present in breast biopsies performed for microcalcifications. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22(12):1521–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Verschuur-Maes AH, van Deurzen CH, Monninkhof EM, van Diest PJ. Columnar cell lesions on breast needle biopsies: is surgical excision necessary? A systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255(2):259–65. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318233523f. Review. PubMed.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosen PP. Columnar cell hyperplasia is associated with lobular carcinoma in situ and tubular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23(12):1561.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boulos FI, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Schuyler PA, Sanders ME, Freudenthal ME, et al. Histologic associations and long-term cancer risk in columnar cell lesions of the breast: a retrospective cohort and a nested case–control study. Cancer. 2008;113(9):2415–21. doi:10.1002/cncr.23873.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Calhoun BC, Sobel A, White RL, Gromet M, Flippo T, Sarantou T, et al. Management of flat epithelial atypia on breast core biopsy may be individualized based on correlation with imaging studies. Mod Pathol. 2014. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2014.159.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gomes DS, Balabram D, Porto SS, Gobb H. Lobular neoplasia: frequency and association with other breast lesions. Diagnostic Pathol. 2011;6:74. doi:10.1097/PAS.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R, Bodian C. Lobular neoplasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ) of the breast. Cancer. 1978;42(2):737–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Page DL, Kidd Jr TE, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW. Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol. 1991;22(12):1232–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Abdel-Fatah TM, Powe DG, Hodi Z, Lee AH, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. High frequency of coexistence of columnar cell lesions, lobular neoplasia, and low grade ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive tubular carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(3):417–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Page DL, Anderson TJ, Rogers LN. Lobular carcinoma in situ. In: Page DL, Anderson TJ, editors. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. New York: Churchill Livingston; 1987. p. 174–82.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dabbs DJ, Schnitt SJ, Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Baehner FL, Decker T, et al. Lobular neoplasia of the breast revisited with emphasis on the role of E-cadherin immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(7):e1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Nordgard SH, Johansen FE, Alnaes GI, Bucher E, Syvänen AC, Naume B, et al. Genome-wide analysis identifies 16q deletion associated with survival, molecular subtypes, mRNA expression, and germline haplotypes in breast cancer patients. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2008;47(8):680–96. doi:10.1002/gcc.20569.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lakhani SR, Collins N, Stratton MR, Sloane JP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: clonal proliferation with loss of heterozygosity on chromosomes 16q and 17p. J Clin Pathol. 1995;48(7):611–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Buckley ES, Webster F, Hiller JE, Roder DM, Farshid G. A systematic review of surgical biopsy for LCIS found at core needle biopsy - do we have the answer yet? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:168.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Middleton LP et al. Most lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed on core needle biopsy can be managed clinically with radiologic follow-up in a multidisciplinary setting. Cancer Med. 2014;3:492. This single institution analysis identifies variables that distinguish which women with lobular neoplasia may be observed versus those requiring surgical excision.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nakhlis F, Golshan M, Gilmore L, Gelman R, Iglehart J, Lawle ER et al. The incidence of adjacent synchronous invasive carcinoma and/or DCIS in patients with lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: results from a prospective multi-institutional registry (TBCRC 020), Presented at 68th annual Cancer Symposium, Society of Surgical Oncology, March 25–28, 2014, Houston, TX.

  46. Kohr JR et al. Risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia after stereotactic breast biopsy: effects of number of foci and complete removal of calcifications. Radiology. 2010;255:723.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Menes TS et al. Upgrade of high-risk breast lesions detected on mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Am J Surg. 2014;207:24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nguyen CV, Albarracin CT, Whitman GJ, Lopez A, Sneige N. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in directional vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: considerations for surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sneige N, Lim SC, Whitman GJ, Krishnamurthy S, Sahin AA, Smith TL, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Considerations for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119(2):248–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pandelidis S, Heiland D, Jones D, et al. Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(1):43–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, et al. Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer. 2007;109(3):487–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ganesan N, Bevers TB, Ying J, Coyne R, Lane D, Albarracin C, Bedrosian I. Risk of breast cancer in women observed after core biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Presented at 67th annual Cancer Symposium, Society of Surgical Oncology, March 12–15, 2014, Phoenix, AZ.

  53. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer in white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23:1111–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pankratz VS, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5374–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Boughey JC, Hartmann LC, Anderson SS, et al. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3591–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hartmann LC, Radisky DC, Frost MH, Santen RJ, Vierkant RA, Benetti LL, et al. Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: a longitudinal cohort study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014;7(2):211–7. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0222.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–63.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469–76. doi:10.1200/jco.2004.00.4960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244(2):381–8. doi:10.1148/radiol.2442060461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G, Verdecchia A, Santaquilani M, Musumeci R, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology. 2007;242(3):698–715. doi:10.1148/radiol.2423051965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1317–25. doi:10.1001/jama.292.11.1317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, Bailey L, Barke LD, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(1):11–4. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2012.09.036. This article provides a summary of the available literature regarding breast cancer screening, including a discussion of supplemental screening.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):390–9. doi:10.2214/ajr.08.1706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Coopey SB, Mazzola E, Buckley JM, et al. The role of chemoprevention in modifying the risk of breast cancer in women with atypical breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136:627–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1652–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2727–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Update of the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: preventing breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res. 2010;3(6):696–706.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9922):1041–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Alés-Martínez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2381–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2942–62. In women at increased risk of breast cancer aged ≥35 years, risk reduction therapy should be offered to reduce the risk of ER-positive breast cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Breast Cancer Risk Reduction (Version 1.2014). Accessed http://www.nccn.org/. The NCCN website provides up-to-date guidelines on breast cancer risk reduction and evidence-based literature support of risk-reducing strategies among high-risk women.

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Therese B. Bevers, Lavinia P. Middleton, and Marion E. Scoggins declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Isabelle Bedrosian reports being on the Bayer Breast MRI Advisory Board.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1322, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Therese B. Bevers

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, 1400 Pressler, Unit 1434, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Isabelle Bedrosian

  3. Department of Pathology, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 85, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Lavinia P. Middleton

  4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Marion E. Scoggins

Authors
  1. Therese B. Bevers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabelle Bedrosian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lavinia P. Middleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marion E. Scoggins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Therese B. Bevers.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Risk, Prevention, and Screening

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bevers, T.B., Bedrosian, I., Middleton, L.P. et al. Current Multidisciplinary Management of High-Risk Breast Lesions. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 7, 81–89 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-015-0179-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-015-0179-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation