Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Including Microinvasive Carcinoma, Tubular Carcinoma, and Cribriform Carcinoma

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Comprehensive Guide to Core Needle Biopsies of the Breast

  • 1482 Accesses

Abstract

Invasive ductal carcinoma, not otherwise specified (IDC, NOS), also referred to as invasive breast carcinoma, no special type, (IBC, NST), is the most common invasive carcinoma. It is a diagnosis of exclusion conferred when the tumor cannot be classified as a specific type of breast carcinoma. Consistent with the no special type classification, IDC shows marked heterogeneity in morphology, grade, hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 expression, and prognosis. Invasive tubular and cribriform carcinomas are special types of IBC that are low-grade, invariably HR positive and HER2 negative, and have an excellent prognosis. Microinvasive carcinoma, defined as invasion 1 mm or less in greatest dimension, is usually found in association with carcinoma in situ and shows an overall prognosis similar to ductal carcinoma in situ. Although gene-expression profiling has segregated tumors into different subtypes, classification based on morphologic features is invaluable for some of these special types of breast carcinomas as it determines prognosis and guides treatment options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anderson WF, Chu KC, Chang S, Sherman ME. Comparison of age-specific incidence rate patterns for different histopathologic types of breast carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(7):1128–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson WF, Pfeiffer RM, Dores GM, Sherman ME. Comparison of age distribution patterns for different histopathologic types of breast carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(10):1899–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ellis IO, Collins L, Ichihara S, MacGrogan G. Invasive carcinoma of no special type. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, Van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: IARC; 2012. p. 34–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher CJ, Egan MK, Smith P, Wicks K, Millis RR, Fentiman IS. Histopathology of breast cancer in relation to age. Br J Cancer. 1997;75(4):593–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR, Moe RE. Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA. 2003;289(11):1421–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Li CI, Daling JR, Malone KE, Bernstein L, Marchbanks PA, Liff JM, et al. Relationship between established breast cancer risk factors and risk of seven different histologic types of invasive breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(5):946–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1992;20(6):479–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher ER, Gregorio RM, Fisher B, Redmond C, Vellios F, Sommers SC. The pathology of invasive breast cancer. A syllabus derived from findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol no. 4). Cancer. 1975;36(1):1–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Broberg A, Glas U, Gustafsson SA, Hellstrom L, Somell A. Relationship between mammographic pattern and estrogen receptor content in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1983;3(2):201–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CD, Freeman AH, Lomas DJ, Warren RM. How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population? Clin Radiol. 1999;54(10):676–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sickies EA. Sonographic detectability of breast calcification. Proc SPIE. 1983;419:51–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lambie RW, Hodgden D, Herman EM, Kopperman M. Sonomammographic manifestations of mammographically detectable breast microcalcifications. J Ultrasound Med. 1983;2(11):509–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196(1):123–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fornage BD, Sneige N, Faroux MJ, Andry E. Sonographic appearance and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of breast carcinomas smaller than 1 cm3. J Ultrasound Med. 1990;9(10):559–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology. 1989;172(3):671–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Moy L, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):868–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lynch B, Seiler S, Moses G, Sahoo S. Findings of magnetic resonance imaging-guided breast biopsy: a radiologic and pathologic correlation study from a Single Institution (Abstract). Mod Pathol. 2013;26:25–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Choudhery S, Lynch B, Sahoo S, Seiler SJ. Features of non-mass enhancing lesions detected on 1.5 T breast MRI: a radiologic and pathologic analysis. Breast Dis. 2015;35(1):13–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238(1):42–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Bogaert LJ, Maldague P. Scirrhous carcinoma of the female breast. Invest Cell Pathol. 1980;3(4):377–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arps DP, Healy P, Zhao L, Kleer CG, Pang JC. Invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features: a comparison study to invasive ductal and invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138(3):719–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO. The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992;22(3):207–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 2002;41(3A):154–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410. Histopathology. 2002;41(3A):151–2; discussion 2–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19(5):403–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bloom HJ, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957;11(3):359–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Patey DH, Scarff RW. The position of histology in the prognosis of carcinoma of the breast. Lancet. 1928;1:801–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haybittle JL, Blamey RW, Elston CW, Johnson J, Doyle PJ, Campbell FC, et al. A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1982;45(3):361–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ellis IO, Bell J, Todd JM, Williams M, Dowle C, Robins AR, et al. Evaluation of immunoreactivity with monoclonal antibody NCRC 11 in breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1987;56(3):295–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Blamey RW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE, Lee AH, Macmillan RD, Morgan DA, et al. Survival of invasive breast cancer according to the Nottingham Prognostic Index in cases diagnosed in 1990-1999. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(10):1548–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cui X, Harada S, Shen D, Siegal GP, Wei S. The utility of phosphohistone H3 in breast cancer grading. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2015;23(10):689–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease. A joint document incorporating the third edition of the NHS Breast Screening Programme’s guidelines for pathology reporting in breast cancer screening and the second edition of The Royal College of Pathologists’ minimum dataset for breast cancer histopathology published by the NHS Cancer Screening Programmes jointly with The Royal College of Pathologists. NHSBSP Publication No 58. January 2005. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp58.html

  35. Start RD, Flynn MS, Cross SS, Rogers K, Smith JH. Is the grading of breast carcinomas affected by a delay in fixation? Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1991;419(6):475–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, Dawkins H, Harvey J, Sterrett G, et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol. 1995;26(8):873–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yildiz-Aktas IZ, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. The effect of cold ischemic time on the immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression in invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2012;25(8):1098–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Neumeister VM, Anagnostou V, Siddiqui S, England AM, Zarrella ER, Vassilakopoulou M, et al. Quantitative assessment of effect of preanalytic cold ischemic time on protein expression in breast cancer tissues. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(23):1815–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Usami S, Moriya T, Amari M, Suzuki A, Ishida T, Sasano H, et al. Reliability of prognostic factors in breast carcinoma determined by core needle biopsy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37(4):250–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shannon J, Douglas-Jones AG, Dallimore NS. Conversion to core biopsy in preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions: is it justified by results? J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(10):762–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. McIntosh SA, Panchalingam L, Payne S, Miller ID, Sarkar TK, Hutcheon AW, et al. Freehand core biopsy in breast cancer: an accurate predictor of tumour grade following neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Breast. 2002;11(6):496–500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Andrade VP, Gobbi H. Accuracy of typing and grading invasive mammary carcinomas on core needle biopsy compared with the excisional specimen. Virchows Arch. 2004;445(6):597–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Monticciolo DL. Histologic grading at breast core needle biopsy: comparison with results from the excised breast specimen. Breast J. 2005;11(1):9–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60(12):1300–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Denley H, Pinder SE, Elston CW, Lee AH, Ellis IO. Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(1):20–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Daveau C, Baulies S, Lalloum M, Bollet M, Sigal-Zafrani B, Sastre X, et al. Histological grade concordance between diagnostic core biopsy and corresponding surgical specimen in HR-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(9):2195–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kwok TC, Rakha EA, Lee AH, Grainge M, Green AR, Ellis IO, et al. Histological grading of breast cancer on needle core biopsy: the role of immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation. Histopathology. 2010;57(2):212–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E, Koot VC, Borel Rinkes IH, Mali WP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2000;82(5):1017–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Verkooijen HM, Core Biopsy After Radiological Localisation Study G. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multicenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer. 2002;99(6):853–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Dillon MF, Hill AD, Quinn CM, O’Doherty A, McDermott EW, O’Higgins N. The accuracy of ultrasound, stereotactic, and clinical core biopsies in the diagnosis of breast cancer, with an analysis of false-negative cases. Ann Surg. 2005;242(5):701–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ibrahim AE, Bateman AC, Theaker JM, Low JL, Addis B, Tidbury P, et al. The role and histological classification of needle core biopsy in comparison with fine needle aspiration cytology in the preoperative assessment of impalpable breast lesions. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(2):121–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Brenner RJ, Fajardo L, Fisher PR, Dershaw DD, Evans WP, Bassett L, et al. Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166(2):341–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bassett L, Winchester DP, Caplan RB, Dershaw DD, Dowlatshahi K, Evans 3rd WP, et al. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;47(3):171–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rakha EA, Gill MS, El-Sayed ME, Khan MM, Hodi Z, Blamey RW, et al. The biological and clinical characteristics of breast carcinoma with mixed ductal and lobular morphology. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(2):243–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Powe DG, Green AR, Habashy H, Grainge MJ, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(1):73–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wiseman C, Liao KT. Primary lymphoma of the breast. Cancer. 1972;29(6):1705–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Telesinghe PU, Anthony PP. Primary lymphoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1985;9(3):297–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Talwalkar SS, Miranda RN, Valbuena JR, Routbort MJ, Martin AW, Medeiros LJ. Lymphomas involving the breast: a study of 106 cases comparing localized and disseminated neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(9):1299–309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ganjoo K, Advani R, Mariappan MR, McMillan A, Horning S. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the breast. Cancer. 2007;110(1):25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sauer T. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of extra mammary metastatic lesions in the breast: a retrospective study of 36 cases diagnosed during 18 years. Cytojournal. 2010;7:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Vaughan A, Dietz JR, Moley JF, Debenedetti MK, Aft RL, Gillanders WE, et al. Metastatic disease to the breast: the Washington University experience. World J Surg Oncol. 2007;5:74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Saluja K, Thakral B, Bit-Ivan E, Kaufman M, Liu L. Fine-needle aspiration of metastatic renal cell carcinoma to a male breast: a rare initial presentation. Cytojournal. 2014;11:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Nasit JG, Shah B, Shah M. Metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma presenting as gynecomastia in male: a diagnostic dilemma in fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytojournal. 2012;9:21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Vassalli L, Ferrari VD, Simoncini E, Rangoni G, Montini E, Marpicati P, et al. Solitary breast metastases from a renal cell carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;68(1):29–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Robens J, Goldstein L, Gown AM, Schnitt SJ. Thyroid transcription factor-1 expression in breast carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(12):1881–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bisceglia M, Galliani C, Rosai J. TTF-1 expression in breast carcinoma-the chosen clone matters. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(7):1087–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Domfeh AB, Carley AL, Striebel JM, Karabakhtsian RG, Florea AV, McManus K, et al. WT1 immunoreactivity in breast carcinoma: selective expression in pure and mixed mucinous subtypes. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(10):1217–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wick MR, Lillemoe TJ, Copland GT, Swanson PE, Manivel JC, Kiang DT. Gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 as a marker for breast cancer: immunohistochemical analysis of 690 human neoplasms and comparison with alpha-lactalbumin. Hum Pathol. 1989;20(3):281–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Bhargava R, Beriwal S, Dabbs DJ. Mammaglobin vs GCDFP-15: an immunohistologic validation survey for sensitivity and specificity. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127(1):103–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Dennis JL, Hvidsten TR, Wit EC, Komorowski J, Bell AK, Downie I, et al. Markers of adenocarcinoma characteristic of the site of origin: development of a diagnostic algorithm. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(10):3766–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Han JH, Kang Y, Shin HC, Kim HS, Kang YM, Kim YB, et al. Mammaglobin expression in lymph nodes is an important marker of metastatic breast carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(10):1330–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Lewis GH, Subhawong AP, Nassar H, Vang R, Illei PB, Park BH, et al. Relationship between molecular subtype of invasive breast carcinoma and expression of gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 and mammaglobin. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(4):587–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Mazoujian G, Bodian C, Haagensen Jr DE, Haagensen CD. Expression of GCDFP-15 in breast carcinomas. Relationship to pathologic and clinical factors. Cancer. 1989;63(11):2156–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sangoi AR, Shrestha B, Yang G, Mego O, Beck AH. The Novel Marker GATA3 is significantly more sensitive than traditional markers mammaglobin and GCDFP15 for identifying breast cancer in surgical and cytology specimens of metastatic and matched primary tumors. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Invasive ductal carcinoma of no special type and histologic grade. In: Dabbs DJ, editor. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. p. 429–45.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975;55(2):231–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wellings SR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1973;50(5):1111–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Marshall LM, Hunter DJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Byrne C, London SJ, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6(5):297–301.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lakhani SR, Audretsch W, Cleton-Jensen AM, Cutuli B, Ellis I, Eusebi V, et al. The management of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Is LCIS the same as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(14):2205–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Hanby AM, Hughes TA. In situ and invasive lobular neoplasia of the breast. Histopathology. 2008;52(1):58–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Oyama T, Iijima K, Takei H, Horiguchi J, Iino Y, Nakajima T, et al. Atypical cystic lobule of the breast: an early stage of low-grade ductal carcinoma in-situ. Breast Cancer. 2000;7(4):326–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Lerwill MF. Flat epithelial atypia of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(4):615–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR. Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol. 2005;205(2):248–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Roylance R, Gorman P, Harris W, Liebmann R, Barnes D, Hanby A, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of breast tumors stratified by histological grade reveals new insights into the biological progression of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1999;59(7):1433–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Buerger H, Otterbach F, Simon R, Poremba C, Diallo R, Decker T, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast-evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J Pathol. 1999;187(4):396–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. O’Connell P, Pekkel V, Fuqua SA, Osborne CK, Clark GM, Allred DC. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(9):697–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Moinfar F, Man YG, Bratthauer GL, Ratschek M, Tavassoli FA. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type (“clinging ductal carcinoma in situ”): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer. 2000;88(9):2072–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Tirkkonen M, Tanner M, Karhu R, Kallioniemi A, Isola J, Kallioniemi OP. Molecular cytogenetics of primary breast cancer by CGH. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1998;21(3):177–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Natrajan R, Lambros MB, Geyer FC, Marchio C, Tan DS, Vatcheva R, et al. Loss of 16q in high grade breast cancer is associated with estrogen receptor status: evidence for progression in tumors with a luminal phenotype? Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2009;48(4):351–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Allred DC, Wu Y, Mao S, Nagtegaal ID, Lee S, Perou CM, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ and the emergence of diversity during breast cancer evolution. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(2):370–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(25):1999–2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(19):10869–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Perou CM, Jeffrey SS, van de Rijn M, Rees CA, Eisen MB, Ross DT, et al. Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(16):9212–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):1160–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, Voduc D, Ebbert M, Vickery T, et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(21):5222–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Soria D, Garibaldi JM, Ambrogi F, Green AR, Powe D, Rakha E, et al. A methodology to identify consensus classes from clustering algorithms applied to immunohistochemical data from breast cancer patients. Comput Biol Med. 2010;40(3):318–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Rakha EA, Soria D, Green AR, Lemetre C, Powe DG, Nolan CC, et al. Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+): a modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(7):1688–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Green AR, Powe DG, Rakha EA, Soria D, Lemetre C, Nolan CC, et al. Identification of key clinical phenotypes of breast cancer using a reduced panel of protein biomarkers. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(7):1886–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, Rakha E, Paish C, Robertson JF, et al. High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer. 2005;116(3):340–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 345–77.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Veronesi P, Rodriguez-Fernandez J, Intra M. Controversies in the use of sentinel nodes: microinvasion, post surgery and after preoperative systemic treatment. Breast. 2007;16 Suppl 2:S67–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Hanna MG, Jaffer S, Bleiweiss IJ, Nayak A. Re-evaluating the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in microinvasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2014;27(11):1489–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Hoda SA, Chiu A, Prasad ML, Giri D, Hoda RS. Are microinvasion and micrometastasis in breast cancer mountains or molehills? Am J Surg. 2000;180(4):305–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Silverstein MJ, Waisman JR, Gamagami P, Gierson ED, Colburn WJ, Rosser RJ, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast (208 cases). Clinical factors influencing treatment choice. Cancer. 1990;66(1):102–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Klauber-DeMore N, Tan LK, Liberman L, Kaptain S, Fey J, Borgen P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy: is it indicated in patients with high-risk ductal carcinoma-in-situ and ductal carcinoma-in-situ with microinvasion? Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7(9):636–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Schuh ME, Nemoto T, Penetrante RB, Rosner D, Dao TL. Intraductal carcinoma. Analysis of presentation, pathologic findings, and outcome of disease. Arch Surg. 1986;121(11):1303–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Kinne DW, Petrek JA, Osborne MP, Fracchia AA, DePalo AA, Rosen PP. Breast carcinoma in situ. Arch Surg. 1989;124(1):33–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Patchefsky AS, Schwartz GF, Finkelstein SD, Prestipino A, Sohn SE, Singer JS, et al. Heterogeneity of intraductal carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 1989;63(4):731–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Yeh IT, Kowalyshyn MJ, Schultz DJ, Weiss MC, et al. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(5):961–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Silver SA, Tavassoli FA. Mammary ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Cancer. 1998;82(12):2382–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. National Coordinating Group for Breast Cancer Screening Pathology. Pathology reporting in breast cancer screening. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Lagios MD, Westdahl PR, Margolin FR, Rose MR. Duct carcinoma in situ. Relationship of extent of noninvasive disease to the frequency of occult invasion, multicentricity, lymph node metastases, and short-term treatment failures. Cancer. 1982;50(7):1309–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Wittekind CF, Greene FL, Hutter RVP, Klimpfinger M, Sobin L, editors. TNM Atlas: illustrated guide to the TNM/pTNM classification of malignant tumours. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2007. p. 207–23.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Vieira CC, Mercado CL, Cangiarella JF, Moy L, Toth HK, Guth AA. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical presentation, imaging features, pathologic findings, and outcome. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73(1):102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Sim YT, Litherland J, Lindsay E, Hendry P, Brauer K, Dobson H, et al. Upgrade of ductal carcinoma in situ on core biopsies to invasive disease at final surgery: a retrospective review across the Scottish Breast Screening Programme. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(5):502–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Dillon MF, McDermott EW, Quinn CM, O’Doherty A, O’Higgins N, Hill AD. Predictors of invasive disease in breast cancer when core biopsy demonstrates DCIS only. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93(7):559–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Nemoto T, Castillo N, Tsukada Y, Koul A, Eckhert Jr KH, Bauer RL. Lobular carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. J Surg Oncol. 1998;67(1):41–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Yang M, Moriya T, Oguma M, De La Cruz C, Endoh M, Ishida T, et al. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma (T1mic) of the breast. The clinicopathological profile and immunohistochemical features of 28 cases. Pathol Int. 2003;53(7):422–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Prasad ML, Osborne MP, Giri DD, Hoda SA. Microinvasive carcinoma (T1mic) of the breast: clinicopathologic profile of 21 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(3):422–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Diaz NM, Cox CE, Ebert M, Clark JD, Vrcel V, Stowell N, et al. Benign mechanical transport of breast epithelial cells to sentinel lymph nodes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(12):1641–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL. Benign transport of breast epithelium into axillary lymph nodes after biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;113(2):259–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Microinvasive carcinoma. In: Schnitt SJ, Collins LC, editors. Biopsy interpretation of the breast. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009. p. 236–48.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, Rutgers E, Morrow M. Microinvasive carcinoma. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, Van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: IARC; 2012. p. 95–7.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Tunon-de-Lara C, Chauvet MP, Baranzelli MC, Baron M, Piquenot J, Le-Bouedec G, et al. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy and factors associated with invasion in extensive DCIS of the breast treated by mastectomy: The Cinnamome Prospective Multicenter Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(12):3853–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Surgery NBSPaAoB. An audit of screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2012 to March 2013. London: NHS Breast Screening Programme; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Intra M, Zurrida S, Maffini F, Sonzogni A, Trifiro G, Gennari R, et al. Sentinel lymph node metastasis in microinvasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(10):1160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Cox CE, Nguyen K, Gray RJ, Salud C, Ku NN, Dupont E, et al. Importance of lymphatic mapping in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): why map DCIS? Am Surg. 2001;67(6):513–9; discussion 9–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Bianchi S, Vezzosi V. Microinvasive carcinoma of the breast. Pathol Oncol Res. 2008;14(2):105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Meretoja TJ, Heikkila PS, Salmenkivi K, Leidenius MH. Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(7):2345–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Gojon H, Fawunmi D, Valachis A. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with microinvasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(1):5–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Parikh RR, Haffty BG, Lannin D, Moran MS. Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: prognostic implications, long-term outcomes, and role of axillary evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(1):7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Murphy CD, Jones JL, Javid SH, Michaelson JS, Nolan ME, Lipsitz SR, et al. Do sentinel node micrometastases predict recurrence risk in ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion? Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):566–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Shatat L, Gloyeske N, Madan R, O’Neil M, Tawfik O, Fan F. Microinvasive breast carcinoma carries an excellent prognosis regardless of the tumor characteristics. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(12):2684–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Lyman GH, Temin S, Edge SB, Newman LA, Turner RR, Weaver DL, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(13):1365–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. van la Parra RF, Ernst MF, Barneveld PC, Broekman JM, Rutten MJ, Bosscha K. The value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(6):631–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Dominguez FJ, Golshan M, Black DM, Hughes KS, Gadd MA, Christian R, et al. Sentinel node biopsy is important in mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(1):268–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Rosen PP. The pathological classification of human mammary carcinoma: past, present and future. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1979;9(2):144–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Cooper HS, Patchefsky AS, Krall RA. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 1978;42(5):2334–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Carstens PH. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. A study of frequency. Am J Clin Pathol. 1978;70(2):204–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Kader HA, Jackson J, Mates D, Andersen S, Hayes M, Olivotto IA. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: a population-based study of nodal metastases at presentation and of patterns of relapse. Breast J. 2001;7(1):8–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Rescigno J, Schiff P. Tubular carcinoma: analysis of 1623 patients from the SEER database [Abstract]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997;46:40.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Romano AM, Wages N, Smolkin M, Fortune K, Atkins K, Dillon PM. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: institutional and SEER database analysis supporting a unique classification. Breast Dis. 2015;35(2):103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Sullivan T, Raad RA, Goldberg S, Assaad SI, Gadd M, Smith BL, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: a retrospective analysis and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;93(3):199–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Rakha EA, Lee AH, Evans AJ, Menon S, Assad NY, Hodi Z, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: further evidence to support its excellent prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):99–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Liu GF, Yang Q, Haffty BG, Moran MS. Clinical-pathologic features and long-term outcomes of tubular carcinoma of the breast compared with invasive ductal carcinoma treated with breast conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(5):1304–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Cabral AH, Recine M, Paramo JC, McPhee MM, Poppiti R, Mesko TW. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: an institutional experience and review of the literature. Breast J. 2003;9(4):298–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Li CI. Risk of mortality by histologic type of breast cancer in the United States. Horm Cancer. 2010;1(3):156–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Visfeldt J, Scheike O. Male breast cancer. I. Histologic typing and grading of 187 Danish cases. Cancer. 1973;32(4):985–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Taxy JB. Tubular carcinoma of the male breast: report of a case. Cancer. 1975;36(2):462–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Fedko MG, Scow JS, Shah SS, Reynolds C, Degnim AC, Jakub JW, et al. Pure tubular carcinoma and axillary nodal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17 Suppl 3:338–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Sheppard DG, Whitman GJ, Huynh PT, Sahin AA, Fornage BD, Stelling CB. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(1):253–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Gunhan-Bilgen I, Oktay A. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, clinical and pathologic findings. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(1):158–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Elson BC, Helvie MA, Frank TS, Wilson TE, Adler DD. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mode of presentation, mammographic appearance, and frequency of nodal metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161(6):1173–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Vega A, Garijo F. Radial scar and tubular carcinoma. Mammographic and sonographic findings. Acta Radiol. 1993;34(1):43–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Kim DB, Lee YR, Kim MJ, et al. Pure and mixed tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic differential features. Korean J Radiol. 2007;8(2):103–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Dessole S, Meloni GB, Capobianco G, Becchere M, Soro D, Canalis GC. Radial scar of the breast: mammographic enigma in pre- and postmenopausal women. Maturitas. 2000;34(3):227–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Tweedie E, Tonkin K, Kerkvliet N, Doig GS, Sparrow RK, O’Malley FP. Biologic characteristics of breast cancer detected by mammography and by palpation in a screening program: a pilot study. Clin Invest Med. 1997;20(5):300–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Rajakariar R, Walker RA. Pathological and biological features of mammographically detected invasive breast carcinomas. Br J Cancer. 1995;71(1):150–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. Cowan WK, Kelly P, Sawan A, Cunliffe WJ, Henry L, Higgs MJ, et al. The pathological and biological nature of screen-detected breast carcinomas: a morphological and immunohistochemical study. J Pathol. 1997;182(1):29–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Anderson TJ, Lamb J, Alexander F, Lutz W, Chetty U, Forrest AP, et al. Comparative pathology of prevalent and incident cancers detected by breast screening. Edinburgh Breast Screening Project. Lancet. 1986;1(8480):519–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Mitnick JS, Gianutsos R, Pollack AH, Susman M, Baskin BL, Ko WD, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: sensitivity of diagnostic techniques and correlation with histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(2):319–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Winchester DJ, Sahin AA, Tucker SL, Singletary SE. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Predicting axillary nodal metastases and recurrence. Ann Surg. 1996;223(3):342–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. McDivitt RW, Boyce W, Gersell D. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Clinical and pathological observations concerning 135 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982;6(5):401–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Andersen JA, Carter D, Linell F. A symposium on sclerosing duct lesions of the breast. Pathol Annu. 1986;21(Pt 2):145–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Leikola J, Heikkila P, von Smitten K, Leidenius M. The prevalence of axillary lymph-node metastases in patients with pure tubular carcinoma of the breast and sentinel node biopsy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(5):488–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Rakha E, Pinder SE, Shin SJ, Tsuda H. Tubular carcinoma and cribriform carcinoma. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, Van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: IARC; 2012. p. 43–5.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Sahoo S, Recant WM. Triad of columnar cell alteration, lobular carcinoma in situ, and tubular carcinoma of the breast. Breast J. 2005;11(2):140–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Rosen PP. Columnar cell hyperplasia is associated with lobular carcinoma in situ and tubular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23(12):1561.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Brandt SM, Young GQ, Hoda SA. The “Rosen Triad”: tubular carcinoma, lobular carcinoma in situ, and columnar cell lesions. Adv Anat Pathol. 2008;15(3):140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Columnar cell lesions and flat epithelial atypia of the breast. Semin Breast Dis. 2005;8(2):100–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Abdel-Fatah TM, Powe DG, Hodi Z, Lee AH, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. High frequency of coexistence of columnar cell lesions, lobular neoplasia, and low grade ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive tubular carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(3):417–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Kunju LP, Ding Y, Kleer CG. Tubular carcinoma and grade 1 (well-differentiated) invasive ductal carcinoma: comparison of flat epithelial atypia and other intra-epithelial lesions. Pathol Int. 2008;58(10):620–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Clement PB, Azzopardi JG. Microglandular adenosis of the breast—a lesion simulating tubular carcinoma. Histopathology. 1983;7(2):169–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Wheeler DT, Tai LH, Bratthauer GL, Waldner DL, Tavassoli FA. Tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast: an analysis of 27 cases of a tumor with a hybrid morphology and immunoprofile. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(12):1587–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Esposito NN, Chivukula M, Dabbs DJ. The ductal phenotypic expression of the E-cadherin/catenin complex in tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast: an immunohistochemical and clinicopathologic study. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(1):130–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Green I, McCormick B, Cranor M, Rosen PP. A comparative study of pure tubular and tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(6):653–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Pereira H, Pinder SE, Sibbering DM, Galea MH, Elston CW, Blamey RW, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. IV: should you be a typer or a grader? A comparative study of two histological prognostic features in operable breast carcinoma. Histopathology. 1995;27(3):219–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Kuroda H, Tamaru J, Takeuchi I, Ohnisi K, Sakamoto G, Adachi A, et al. Expression of E-cadherin, alpha-catenin, and beta-catenin in tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast. Virchows Arch. 2006;448(4):500–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Libby A, Allred DC, Elledge RM. Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):1442–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, Goldstein LJ, et al. NCCN Task Force Report: estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7 Suppl 6:S1–21; quiz S2–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Alvarenga CA, Paravidino PI, Alvarenga M, Gomes M, Dufloth R, Zeferino LC, et al. Reappraisal of immunohistochemical profiling of special histological types of breast carcinomas: a study of 121 cases of eight different subtypes. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(12):1066–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Lopez-Garcia MA, Geyer FC, Natrajan R, Kreike B, Mackay A, Grigoriadis A, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of tubular carcinomas of the breast reveals similarities and differences with molecular subtype-matched ductal and lobular carcinomas. J Pathol. 2010;222(1):64–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Rosen PP, Lesser ML, Arroyo CD, Cranor M, Borgen P, Norton L. p53 in node-negative breast carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study of epidemiologic risk factors, histologic features, and prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(4):821–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Waldman FM, Hwang ES, Etzell J, Eng C, DeVries S, Bennington J, et al. Genomic alterations in tubular breast carcinomas. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(2):222–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Livi L, Paiar F, Meldolesi E, Talamonti C, Simontacchi G, Detti B, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: outcome and loco-regional recurrence in 307 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31(1):9–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Javid SH, Smith BL, Mayer E, Bellon J, Murphy CD, Lipsitz S, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: results of a large contemporary series. Am J Surg. 2009;197(5):674–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Min Y, Bae SY, Lee HC, Lee JH, Kim M, Kim J, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathologic features and survival outcome compared with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Breast Cancer. 2013;16(4):404–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Deos PH, Norris HJ. Well-differentiated (tubular) carcinoma of the breast. A clinicopathologic study of 145 pure and mixed cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1982;78(1):1–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Papadatos G, Rangan AM, Psarianos T, Ung O, Taylor R, Boyages J. Probability of axillary node involvement in patients with tubular carcinoma of the breast. Br J Surg. 2001;88(6):860–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Lea V, Gluch L, Kennedy CW, Carmalt H, Gillett D. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: axillary involvement and prognostic factors. ANZ J Surg. 2014;85(6):448–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Dejode M, Sagan C, Campion L, Houvenaeghel G, Giard S, Rodier JF, et al. Pure tubular carcinoma of the breast and sentinel lymph node biopsy: a retrospective multi-institutional study of 234 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(3):248–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, Zurrida S, Luini A, Galimberti V, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):595–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Ashikaga T, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(10):881–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, Mansel RE, Group AT. Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer—results of the ALMANAC validation phase. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;99(2):203–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(8):567–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project protocol B-06. 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer. 1993;71(8):2507–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Page DL, Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Lee D, Stewart HJ. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1983;7(4):525–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Venable JG, Schwartz AM, Silverberg SG. Infiltrating cribriform carcinoma of the breast: a distinctive clinicopathologic entity. Hum Pathol. 1990;21(3):333–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Marzullo F, Zito FA, Marzullo A, Labriola A, Schittulli F, Gargano G, et al. Infiltrating cribriform carcinoma of the breast. A clinico-pathologic and immunohistochemical study of 5 cases. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1996;17(3):228–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Stutz JA, Evans AJ, Pinder S, Ellis IO, Yeoman LJ, Wilson AR, et al. The radiological appearances of invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. Nottingham Breast Team. Clin Radiol. 1994;49(10):693–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Zhang W, Zhang T, Lin Z, Zhang X, Liu F, Wang Y, et al. Invasive cribriform carcinoma in a Chinese population: comparison with low-grade invasive ductal carcinoma-not otherwise specified. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013;6(3):445–57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. Lee YJ, Choi BB, Suh KS. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, MRI, and 18 F-FDG PET-CT features. Acta Radiol. 2014;56(6):644–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Cong Y, Qiao G, Zou H, Lin J, Wang X, Li X, et al. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast: a report of nine cases and a review of the literature. Oncol Lett. 2015;9(4):1753–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  205. Nishimura R, Ohsumi S, Teramoto N, Yamakawa T, Saeki T, Takashima S. Invasive cribriform carcinoma with extensive microcalcifications in the male breast. Breast Cancer. 2005;12(2):145–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Lim HS, Jeong SJ, Lee JS, Park MH, Yoon JH, Kim JW, et al. Sonographic findings of invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(5):701–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Wells CA, Ferguson DJ. Ultrastructural and immunocytochemical study of a case of invasive cribriform breast carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 1988;41(1):17–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  208. Saout L, Leduc M, Suy-Beng PT, Meignie P. A new case of cribriform breast carcinoma associated with histiocytic giant cell reaction. Arch Anat Cytol Pathol. 1985;33(1):58–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. Rabban JT, Swain RS, Zaloudek CJ, Chase DR, Chen YY. Immunophenotypic overlap between adenoid cystic carcinoma and collagenous spherulosis of the breast: potential diagnostic pitfalls using myoepithelial markers. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(10):1351–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Zhang W, Lin Z, Zhang T, Liu F, Niu Y. A pure invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast with bone metastasis if untreated for thirteen years: a case report and literature review. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA

    Karan Saluja M.D., Helena Hwang M.D. & Sunati Sahoo M.D.

Authors
  1. Karan Saluja M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helena Hwang M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sunati Sahoo M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunati Sahoo M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA

    Sandra J. Shin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Saluja, K., Hwang, H., Sahoo, S. (2016). Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Including Microinvasive Carcinoma, Tubular Carcinoma, and Cribriform Carcinoma. In: Shin, S. (eds) A Comprehensive Guide to Core Needle Biopsies of the Breast . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26291-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26291-8_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26289-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26291-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation