Virchows Archiv

, Volume 461, Issue 4, pp 419–423

Flat epithelial atypia with and without atypical ductal hyperplasia: to re-excise or not. Results of a 5-year prospective study

  • Ikechukwu Uzoaru
  • Bradley R. Morgan
  • Zheng G. Liu
  • Frank J. Bellafiore
  • Farah S. Gaudier
  • Jeanne V. Lo
  • Kourosh Pakzad
Original Article

Abstract

Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) of the breast have a tendency to calcify and, as such, are becoming increasingly detected by mammography. There is no consensus yet on whether to excise these lesions or not after diagnosis on core needle biopsies (CNB). We reviewed 3,948 cases of breast CNB between June 2004 and June 2009 correlating histomorphologic, radiological, and clinical features. There were 3.7 % (145/3,948) pure FEA and 1.5 % (58/3,948) concomitant FEA and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). In the pure FEA population, 46.2 % (67/145) had microcalcifications on mammography with 65.5 % (95/145) of patients undergoing subsequent excisional biopsies with the following findings: benign 20 % (19/95), ADH 37.9 % (36/95), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 1.1 % (1/95), and DCIS and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) 2.1 % (2/95). In the concomitant FEA and ADH group, 86.2 % (50/58) patients had microcalcifications on radiograph with 74.1 % (43/58) of patients undergoing subsequent excisions with: benign 23.3 % (10/43), DCIS 9.3 % (4/43), DCIS and IDC 4.7 % (2/43), DCIS + lobular carcinoma in situ + invasive lobular carcinoma 2.3 % (1/43), and tubular carcinoma 2.3 % (1/43). The incidence of carcinoma in the FEA + ADH group is 18.6 % (8/43) and 3.2 % (3/95) for the pure FEA group. This difference is statistically significant (p = 0.0016). The relative risk of carcinoma in the ADH + FEA group versus the pure FEA group is 6.4773, with 95 % CI of 1.8432 and 22.76 24. Five-year mean follow-up in the unexcised pure FEA did not show any malignancies. These findings suggest that pure FEA has a very low association with carcinoma, and these patients may benefit from close clinical and mammographic follow-up while the combined pure FEA and ADH cases may be re-excised.

Keywords

Breast Flat epithelial atypia Core needle biopsies Re-excision of flat epithelial atypia Breast calcifications and densities 

References

  1. 1.
    Tavassoli FA, Hoofer H, Rosai J, Holland R, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Booker W, Heywang-Köbrunner MF, Lakhani SR (2003) Intraductal proliferative lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds) World Health Organization classification of tumours: Tumours of the breast and female genital tract organs IARC. Lyon, France, pp 63–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azzopardi JG (1979) Clinging carcinoma. In: Azzopardi JG, Ahmed A, Millis RR (eds) Problems in breast pathology. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 193–203Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moinfar F, Man YG, Bratthauer GL, Ratschek M, Tavassoli FA (2000) Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type (“clinging ductal carcinoma in situ”): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer 88:2072–2081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dabbs DJ, Carter G, Fudge M, Peng Y, Siralsky P, Finkelstein S (2006) Molecular alterations in columnar cell lesions of the breast. Mod Pathol 19:344–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koerner FC, Oyama T, Maluf H (2001) Morphological observations regarding the origins of atypical cystic lobules (low grade clinging carcinoma of flat type). Virchows Arch 439:523–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldstein NS, O’Malley BA (1997) Cancerization of small ectatic ducts of the breast by ductal carcinoma in situ cells with apocrine snouts. A lesion associated with tubular carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 107:561–566PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kusama R, Fujimori M, Matsuyama I et al (2000) Clinicopathologic characteristics of atypical cystic duct (ACD) of the breast: assessment of ACD as a precancerous lesion. Pathol Int 50:793–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsuchiya S (1998) Atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, and interpretation of a new borderline lesion. Jpn J Cancer Clin 44:548–555Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraser JL, Raza S, Chorny K, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ (1998) Columnar alteration with prominent apical snouts and secretions: a spectrum of changes frequently present in breast biopsies performed for microcalcifications. Am J Surg Pathol 22:1521–1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oyama T, Iijima K, Takei H (2000) Atypical cystic lobule of the breast: an early stage of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer 7:326–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dessauvagie B, Zhao W, Heel-Miller KA, Harvey J, Bentel JM (2007) Characterization of columnar cell lesions of the breast: immunophenotypic analysis of columnar alteration of lobules with prominent apical snouts and secretions. Hum Pathol 38:284–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bratthauer G, Tavassoli FA (2004) Assessment of lesions coexisting with various grades of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast. Virchows Arch 444:340–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martel M, Barron-Rodriguez P, Ocal IT, Dotto J, Tavassoli FA (2007) Flat DIN 1(flat epithelial atypia) on core needle biopsy: 63 cases identified retrospectively among 1,751 cores over an 8 year period (1992-1999). Virchows Arch 451:883–891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turashvili G, Hayes M, Gilks B, Watson P, Aparichio S (2008) Are columnar cell lesions the earliest histologically detectable non-obligate precursor of breast cancer? Virchows Arch 452:589–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schnitt SJ, Vincent-Salomon A (2007) Columnar cell lesions of the breast. Adv Anat Pathol 10:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tan PH, Ho BC-S, Selvarajan S, Yap WM, Hanby A (2008) Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility? J Clin Pathol 58:705–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Puibello Q, Parisi A, Eccher A, Barbazeni G, Franchini Z, Iannucci A (2009) Flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy—which is the right management? Am J Surg Pathol 33:1078–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kunju LP, Kleer CG (2007) Significance of flat epithelial atypia on mammotome core needle biopsy: should it be excised? Hum Pathol 38:35–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oyama T, Maluf H, Koerner F (1999) Atypical cystic lobules: an early stage in the formation of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Virchows Arch 435:413–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG (1975) An atlas of subgross anatomy of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 55:231–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lerwill MF (2008) Flat epithelial atypia of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 132:615–621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buerger H, Mommers EC, Littman R et al (2001) Ductal invasive G2 and G3 carcinomas of the breast are the end stages of at least two different lines of genetic evolution. J Pathol 194:165–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Connell P, Pekkel V, Fuqua SA, Osborne CK, Clark GM (1998) Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:697–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simpson PT, Gale T, Reis-Filho JS et al (2005) Columnar cell lesions of the breast: the missing link in breast cancer progression? A morphologic and molecular analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 29:734–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sotiriou C, Soek-Ying N, McShane LM et al (2003) Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(18):10393–10398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bombonati A, Sgroi DC (2011) The molecular pathology of breast cancer progression. J Pathol 223:307–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moinfar F (2010) Flat ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast: evolution of Azzopardi’s “clinging” concept. Sem Diagn Pathol 27:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jara-Lazaro AR, Tse GM, Tan PH (2009) Columnar cell lesions of the breast: an update and significance on core biopsy. Pathology 41(1):18–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Senetta R, Campanino PP, Mariscotti G et al (2009) Columnar cell lesions associated with breast calcifications on vacuum assisted core biopsies: clinical, radiographic, and histologic correlations. Mod Pathol 22:762–769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Mascarel I, Brouste V, Asad-Syed M, Hurtevent G, MacGrogan G (2011) All atypia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum assisted breast biopsy do not need surgical excision. Mod Pathol 9:1198–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verschuur-Maes AHJ, Witkamp AJ, De Bruin PC, Van Der Wall E, Van Priest PJ (2011) Progression risk of columnar cell lesions of the breast diagnosed in core. Int J Cancer 129:2674–2680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP et al (1994) Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Sem Diagn Pathol 11(3):223–235Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L et al (2001) Risk factors for recurrence and metastases after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853. J Clin Oncol 19:2263–2271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yamaguchi R, Tanaka M, Tse GM et al (2012) Pure flat epithelial atypia is uncommon in subsequent breast excisions for atypical epithelial proliferation. Cancer Sci 103(8):1580–1585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ikechukwu Uzoaru
    • 1
  • Bradley R. Morgan
    • 1
  • Zheng G. Liu
    • 1
  • Frank J. Bellafiore
    • 1
  • Farah S. Gaudier
    • 1
  • Jeanne V. Lo
    • 1
  • Kourosh Pakzad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyCarle Foundation HospitalUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations