Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 3346–3349 | Cite as

Breast Cancer Risk and Follow-up Recommendations for Young Women Diagnosed with Atypical Hyperplasia and Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS)

  • Maureen P. McEvoy
  • Suzanne B. Coopey
  • Emanuele Mazzola
  • Julliette Buckley
  • Ahmet Belli
  • Fernanda Polubriaginof
  • Andrea L. Merrill
  • Rong Tang
  • Judy E. Garber
  • Barbara L. Smith
  • Michele A. Gadd
  • Michelle C. Specht
  • Anthony J. Guidi
  • Constance A. Roche
  • Keven S. Hughes
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

The risk of breast cancer in young women diagnosed with atypical hyperplasia and (LCIS) is not well defined. The objectives were to evaluate outcomes and to help determine guidelines for follow-up in this population.

Methods

A retrospective review of women under age 35 diagnosed with ADH, ALH, LCIS, and severe ADH from 1987 to 2010 was performed. Patient characteristics, pathology and follow-up were determined from chart review.

Results

We identified 58 young women with atypical breast lesions. Median age at diagnosis was 31 years (range 19–34). 34 patients had ADH, 11 had ALH, 8 had LCIS, and 5 had severe ADH.

7 (12%) patients developed breast cancer. The median follow-up was 86 months (range 1–298). Median time to cancer diagnosis was 90 months (range 37–231). 4 cancers were on the same side, 3 were contralateral. 4 were IDC, 1 was ILC, and 2 were DCIS.

Cancer was detected by screening mammogram in 4 patients, 2 by clinical exam, and 1 unknown. In the entire cohort, 26 (45%) patients had screening mammograms as part of their follow up, 12 patients had only clinical follow up, and 20 had no additional follow up. 13 patients required subsequent biopsies.

Conclusion

Young women with atypical breast lesions are at a markedly increased risk for developing breast cancer and should be followed closely. Based on our findings, we recommend close clinical follow-up, MRI starting at age 25 through age 29, and screening mammograms for those over 30 in this high-risk group of patients.

Keywords

Tamoxifen Breast Cancer Risk National Comprehensive Cancer Network8 Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Develop Breast Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Disclosure

No disclosures.

References

  1. 1.
    Carter CL, Corle DK, Micozzi MS, et al. A prospective study of the development of breast cancer in 16,692 women with benign breast disease. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128(3):467–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55(11):2698–708.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Page DL, Kidd TE Jr., Dupont WD, et al. Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol. 1991;22(12):1232–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marshall LM, Hunter DJ, Connolly JL, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6(5):297–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(3):146–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    London SJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Colditz GA. A prospective study of benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 1992;267(7):941–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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. 136(3):627–33.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Network NCC. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Vol. 2014, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Surveillance E, and End Results (SEER) Program Populations SEER9 Registries. 1973–2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2671–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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(18):1371–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(23):2727–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barthelmes L, Gateley CA. Tamoxifen and pregnancy. Breast 2004;13(6):446–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 10(1):11–4.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, et al. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(3):1051–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwartz T, Cyr A, Margenthaler J. Screening breast magnetic resonance imaging in women with atypia or lobular carcinoma in situ. J Surg Res. 193(2):519–22.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 7(1):18–27.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maureen P. McEvoy
    • 1
  • Suzanne B. Coopey
    • 1
  • Emanuele Mazzola
    • 1
  • Julliette Buckley
    • 1
  • Ahmet Belli
    • 1
  • Fernanda Polubriaginof
    • 1
  • Andrea L. Merrill
    • 1
  • Rong Tang
    • 1
  • Judy E. Garber
    • 1
  • Barbara L. Smith
    • 1
  • Michele A. Gadd
    • 1
  • Michelle C. Specht
    • 1
  • Anthony J. Guidi
    • 1
  • Constance A. Roche
    • 1
  • Keven S. Hughes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology-Breast Surgery DivisionMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations