The Breast Pathology Report

  • Shahla Masood


Pathologists have played a central role in the progress against breast cancer and have remained loyal partners in its study, diagnosis, and management. Aside from diagnostic information, pathologists have been engaged in the study of the characteristics of breast cancer such as tumor size, lymph node status, expression of hormone receptor proteins, oncogenes, tumor support genes, and the rate of tumor proliferation. This information has long been used clinically to identify patients who are most likely to respond to therapy. With the availability of targeted therapy, pathologists have become more involved in the development, validation, implementation, and appropriate use of predictive testing to better treat patients with breast cancer. Above all, in the last several years, pathologists have gradually evolved from passive interpreters of biopsies and surgical specimens to active partners in clinical breast care. This chapter is designed to outline the role of pathologists in the delivery of optimal breast health care and to discuss current challenges associated with optimal breast pathology reporting.


Breast Cancer Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Breast Pathology Lobular Neoplasia 
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.

Suggested Reading

  1. •Demartines N, Mutter D, Vix M, et al. Assessment of telemedicine in surgical education and patient care. Ann Surg. 2000;231:282–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. •Hakam A, Khin NN. Intraoperative imprint cytology in assessment of sentinel lymph nodes and lumpectomy surgical margins. Clin Lab Med. 2005;25:795–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. •Henson DE, Oberman HA, Hutter RV. Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with cancer of the breast: a publication of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists. Members of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists, and the Task Force for Protocols on the Examination of Specimens from Patients with Breast Cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121(1):27–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. •Masood S. Standardization of immunobioassays as surrogate endpoints. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1994;19:28–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. •Masood S. Standard guidelines for breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy: a new challenge. Breast J. 1996;2(4):231–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. •Masood S. The expanding role of pathologists in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer: Worldwide Excellence in Breast Pathology Program. Breast J. 2003a;9 suppl 2:S94–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. •Masood S. Why a new society? A call for action: advancing knowledge in breast pathology. Breast J. 2003b;9(4):263–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. •Masood S. Core needle biopsy versus fine needle aspiration biopsy: are there similar sampling and diagnostic issues? Clin Lab Med. 2005;25:679–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. •Masood S. Raising the bar: a plea for standardization and quality improvement in the practice of breast pathology. Breast J. 2006;12:409–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. •Masood S. The fine line between competency and quality performance in breast pathology: are we serving our patients right? Breast J. 2007;13(5):441–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. •Newman E, Guest A, Helvie M, Roubidoux M, Chang A, Kleer C, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006;107:2346–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. •Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. Real-world performance of HER2 testing – National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:852–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. •Rhodes A, Jasani B, Barnes DM, et al. Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:125–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. •Roche PC, Suman VJ, Jenkins RB, et al. Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:855–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. •Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15:209–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. •Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ­ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16:1133–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. •Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N. etal. Changes in breast cnacer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:982–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. •Viale G, Maiorano E, Pruneri G, et al. Predicting the risk for additional axillary metastases in patients with breast carcinoma and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg. 2005;241:319–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. •Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, et al. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:142–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. •Wilkinson NW, Shahryarinejad A, Winston JS, et al. Concordance with breast cancer pathology reporting practice guidelines. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:38–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyShands Hospital, University of Florida College of MedicineJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations