Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 438–442 | Cite as

Terminal Duct Lobular Units are Scarce in the Nipple: Implications for Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Terminal Duct Lobular Units in the Nipple
Breast Oncology Original Papers

Abstract

Background

The use of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) for both breast cancer treatment and risk reduction is increasing. There is no randomized data comparing nipple-sparing mastectomy with standard mastectomy techniques. There is evidence to suggest that ductal and lobular breast cancer arises in the terminal duct/lobular unit (TDLU). This study was undertaken to determine whether TDLUs exist in the nipple and if so, to what extent.

Methods

At the time of mastectomy the nipple papilla was excised and submitted for separate pathological examination. The presence or absence of TDLUs was noted.

Results

Thirty-two nipples were studied in 22 patients. There were no TDLUs in 29 specimens. Three of 32 nipple specimens were found to contain TDLUs. The three nipples contain one, two, and three TDLUs respectively. All TDLUs were found at the base of the nipple, with none located near the tip.

Conclusions

The infrequent occurrence of TDLUs in the nipple papilla supports the use of NSM for risk reduction surgery, including for those women with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Keywords

Prophylactic mastectomy BRCA1/2 Breast anatomy Breast cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Carlson GW, Styblo TM, Lyles RH, Bostwick J, et al. Local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy: tumor biology or surgical conservatism? Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:108–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newman LA, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Kroll SS, et al. Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5:620–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Medina-Franco H, Vasconez LO, Fix RJ, Heslin MF, et al. Factors associated with local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg 2002;235:814–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foster RD, Esserman LJ, Anthony JP, Hwang ES, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study for the treatment of advanced stages of breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:462–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stanec Z, Zic R, Stanec S, Budi S. Skin-sparing mastectomy with nipple-areola conservation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:496–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crowe JP, Kim JA, Yetman R, Banbury J, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technique and results of 54 procedures. Arch Surg 2004;139:148–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T, Muller H, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Ann Surg 2003;238:120–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC, Luini A, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:704–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolier AJ, Corsetti RL. Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients choose bilateral mastectomy over breast-conserving surgery when testing positive for BRCA1/2 mutation. Am Surg 2005;71:1031–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weitzel JN, McCaffrey SM, Nedelcu R, MacDonald DJ, et al. Effect of genetic cancer risk assessment on surgical decisions at breast cancer diagnosis. Arch Surg 2003;138:1323–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Brogan B, Peshkin BN, et al. Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 counseling and testing on newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1823–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laronga C, Kemp B, Hohnston D, et al. the incidence of occult nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients receiving a skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6:609–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santini D, Taffurelli M, Gelli MC, et al. Neoplastic involvement of the nipple-areola complex in invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg 1989;158:399–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wellings SR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 1973;50:1111–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wellings SR. A hypothesis of the origin of human breast cancer from the terminal ductal lobular unit. Pathol Res Pract 1980;166:515–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parks AG. The microanatomy of the breast. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1959;25:235–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montagna W. Histology and cytochemistry of human skin XXXV. The nipple and areola. Br J Dermatol 1970;83:2–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Going JJ, Moffat DF. Escaping from flatland: clinical and biological aspects of human mammary duct anatomy in three dimensions. J Pathol 2004;203:538–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Love SM, Barsky SH. Anatomy of the nipple and breast ducts revisited. Cancer 2004;101:1946–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taneri F, Kurukahvecioglu O, Akyurek N, Tekin EH, et al. Microanatomy of milk ducts in the nipple. Eur Surg Res 2006;38:545–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosen PP, Tench W. Lobules in the nipple. Pathol Annu 1985;20:317–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fisher ER, Remigio MG, Fisher B. The pathology of invasive breast cancer. A syllabus derived from findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project. Cancer 1975;36:1–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B. Pathological findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast project B-06. 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer 1993;71:2507–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klijn JGM, Van Geel AN, Meijers-Heijboer H, Tilanus-Linthorst M, et al. Long-term follow-up of the Rotterdam study on prophylactic mastectomy versus surveillance in BRCA1/2 carriers. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:9502Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1055–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, Frank TS, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1586–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Randall P, Dabb R, Loc N. “Apple coring” the nipple in subcutaneous mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979;64:800–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ashikari R, Park K, Huvos HG, et al. Paget’s Disease of the Breast. Cancer 1970;26:680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chaudary MA, Millis RR, Lane EB, Mille NA. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1986;6:139–46Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen C, Guamer J, DeRose PB. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993;117:291–4Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ohuchi N, Abe R, Takahashi T, Tezuka F, et al. Susceptibility of intraductal papillomas to carcinogenesis based on 3-dimensional reconstruction study. Nippon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 1984;85:175–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hungermann D, Decker T, Burger H, Kersting C, et al. Papillary tumors of the breast. Pathologe 2006;27:350–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ibarra JA. Papillary lesions of the breast. Breast J 2006;12:237–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Page DL, Salhanny KE, Jensen RA, Dupont WD. Subsequent breast carcinoma risk after biopsy with atypia in a breast papilloma. Cancer 1996;78:258–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tulane University Department of Surgery and Omega HospitalNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyOchsner Health SystemNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations