Advertisement

Epithelial Hyperplasia

  • D. Amy
  • T. Tot
  • G. Botta
Chapter

Abstract

Intraductal and intralobular proliferations are common lesions in the “screening era.” The impressive improvements in mammary ultrasound allow one to bring to light the modifications corresponding to epithelial proliferation. At present, it is impossible to distinguish between the various stages of hyperplasia and in situ cancer through echography. It is a significant improvement to be able to distinguish a lobular modification from a ductal one. Nevertheless, although echography is but one technique of imaging, it enables us to identify the patients at risk who have to remain under close scrutiny with very regular mammographic and echographic checkups. The combination of these two techniques is essential.

The natural history of these lesions is poorly understood (further studies will be necessary). Uniform classification and reporting of benign breast disease is needed to better delineate the relationship of specific benign breast disease pathologies and increased risk of breast cancer.

Even if intraductal/intralobular proliferations are a non-obligate precursor to invasive breast cancer, they show an increased risk of developing a subsequent breast-invasive cancer (different risk for each group).

Keywords

Intraductal proliferation Intralobular proliferation Usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH) Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) Atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Dr. Riccardo Arisio for the general support and to Silvia Botta for pathological drawings.

References

  1. 1.
    Gallager HS, Martin JE. Early phases in the development of breast cancer. Cancer. 1969;24:1170–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Brux J. Histopathologie du sein. Paris: Masson; 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver M. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tot T, Tabár L, Dean PB. Practical breast pathology. 2nd ed. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pinder SE, Reis-Filho JS. Non-operative breast pathology: columnar cell lesions. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:1307–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mastropasqua MG, Viale G. Clinical and pathological assessment of high-risk ductal and lobular breast lesions: What surgeons must know. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(3):229–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dyrstad SW, Yan Y, Fowler AM, et al. Breast cancer risk associated with benign breast disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:569–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55:2698–708.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer. 1990;65:518–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellis IO, Humphreys S, Michell M, et al. Guidelines for breast needle core biopsy handling and reporting in breast screening assessment. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57:897–902.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otterbach F, Bankfalvi A, Bergner S, Decker T, Krech R, Boecker W. Cytokeratin 5/6 immunohistochemistry assists the differential diagnosis of atypical proliferations of the breast. Histopathology. 2000;37(3):232–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bombonati A, Sgroi DC. The molecular pathology of breast cancer progression. J Pathol. 2011;223(2):307–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lopez-Garcia MA, Geyer FC, Lacroix-Triki M, Marchio C, Reis-Filho JS. Breast cancer precursors revisited: molecular features and progression pathways. Histopathology. 2010;57(2):171–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. The influence of family history on breast cancer risk in women with biopsy-confirmed benign breast disease: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer. 2006;107(6):1240–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitzgibbons PL, Henson DE, Hutter RV. Benign breast changes and the risk for subsequent breast cancer: an update of the 1985 consensus statement. Cancer Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122(12):1053–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schnitt SJ. Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk: morphology and beyond. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(6):836–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Lange J, Jaffer S, Rosenberg R, Miglioretti DL. Subsequent breast cancer risk following diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia on needle biopsy. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:36.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Simpson JF, Page DL, Dupont WD. Continued observation of the natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ reaffirms proclivity for local recurrence even after more than 30 years of follow-up. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:662–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lester SC, Connolly JL, Amin MB. College of American pathologists protocol for the reporting of ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:13–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tavassoli FA. Mod Pathol. 1998;11(2):140–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tot T, Tabár L. Mammographic–pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using two- and three-dimensional large histologic sections. Semin Breast Dis. 2005;8:144–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foschini MP, Flamminio F, Miglio R, et al. The impact of large sections on study of in situ and invasive duct carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol. 2007;38(12):1736–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biesemier KW, Alexander C. Enhancement of mammographic-pathologic correlation utilizing large format histology for malignant breast disease. Semin Breast Dis. 2005;8:152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tot T, Ibarra JA. Examination of specimens from patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using large-format histology sections. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(9):1361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Park S, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. A study based on NSABP Protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR. Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol. 2005;205(2):248–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, et al. Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ: frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer. 1989;63:616–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wallis MG, Clements K, Kearins O, et al. The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time of recurrence after 15 years of follow up of screen-detected DCIS. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:1611–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Choosing treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: fine tuning the University of Southern California/Van Nuys Prognostic Index. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:193–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW. Ductal involvement by cells of atypical lobular hyperplasia in the breast: a long-term follow-up study of cancer risk. Hum Pathol. 1988;19:201–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Page DL, Kidd TE Jr, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lakhani SR, Schnitt S, O’Malley F, van de Vijver M, Simpson PT, Palacios J. Lobular neoplasia. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: IARC Press; 2012. p. 78–80.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schnitt SJ, Morrow M. Lobular carcinoma in situ: current concepts and controversies. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1999;16(3):209–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bratthauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia: previously unexplored aspects assessed in 775 cases and their clinical implications. Virchows Arch. 2002;440:134–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Collins LC, Aroner SA, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ, Tamimi RM. Breast cancer risk by extent and type of atypical hyperplasia: an update from the nurses’ health studies. Cancer. 2016;15(122):515–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vos CB, Cleton-Jansen AM, Berx G, et al. E-cadherin inactivation in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: an early event in tumorigenesis. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:1131–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lu YJ, Osin P, Lakhani SR, Di Palma S, Gusterson BA, Shipley JM. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia and potential roles for gains and losses of genetic material in breast neoplasia. Cancer Res. 1998;58:4721–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lakhani SR, Audretsch W, Cleton-Jensen AM, et al. on behalf of Eusoma. The management of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Is LCIS the same as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:2205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast—risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:78–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hartmann LC, Radisky DC, Frost MH, et al. Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: a longitudinal cohort study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014;7:211–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Benson JR, Jatoi I, Toi M. Treatment of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: is nothing better than something? Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):e442-e451.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ward EM, DeSantis CE, Chieh Lin C, et al. Cancer statistics: breast cancer in situ. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:481–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Mascarel I, Brouste V, Asad-Syed M, Hurtevent G, MacGrogan G. All atypia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy do not need surgical excision. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:1198–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Giurescu ME, McCullough AE, Gray RJ. Atypical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsy: an automatic trigger for excisional biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3264–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rudolf U, Jacks LS, Goldberg JI, et al. Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3762–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Miyake T, Shimazu K, Ohashi H, et al. Indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer when core biopsy shows ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg. 2011;202:59–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Williams KE, Barnes NL, Cramer A, et al. Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1019–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Text Recommended

  1. Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Biopsy interpretation of the breast. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters-Kluwer/Lippincott-Wilkins and Williams; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. Hoda SA, Koerner FC, Brogi E, Rosen PP. Rosen’s breast pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.Google Scholar
  3. Modena S. Trattato di senologia. Padova: Piccin; 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre du seinAix-en-ProvenceFrance
  2. 2.Department of Pathology and Clinical CytologyFalun Central HospitalFalunSweden
  3. 3.Department of PathologySant Anna HospitalTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations