Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Breast Cancer Management for Surgeons pp 103–114Cite as

Pathology of High-Risk Breast Lesions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2535 Accesses

Abstract

Some lesions in the breast are benign but not only confer an increased risk to the patient of subsequently developing cancer in either breast over time but are also recognised to be associated with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma in the same breast contemporaneously (i.e. be «upgraded» to malignancy). These include the atypical epithelial proliferations such as flat epithelial atypia, lobular neoplasia and atypical ductal hyperplasia. Other lesions have a very low risk of subsequent carcinoma but nevertheless a risk of upgrade (e.g. radial scars and papillary lesions). We cover here the commoner breast lesions associated with a risk of upgrade and/or increased future breast cancer risk. Their histological and molecular features, clinical significance and management are discussed.

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

References

  1. Verschuur-Maes AH, van Gils CH, van den Bosch MA, De Bruin PC, van Diest PJ. Digital mammography: more microcalcifications, more columnar cell lesions without atypia. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(9):1191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schnitt SJ. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: flat epithelial atypia - classification, pathologic features and clinical significance. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(5):263–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan PH, Ho BC, Selvarajan S, Yap WM, Hanby A. Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility? J Clin Pathol. 2005;58(7):705–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. O'Malley FP, Mohsin SK, Badve S, Bose S, Collins LC, Ennis M, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of flat epithelial atypia of the breast. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(2):172–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. 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 

  7. Aulmann S, Elsawaf Z, Penzel R, Schirmacher P, Sinn HP. Invasive tubular carcinoma of the breast frequently is clonally related to flat epithelial atypia and low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(11):1646–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP, Micheli A, Conti A, Riva C, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Sem Diagn Pathol. 1994;11(3):223–35.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Group EBCC, Group ER, Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, Bogaerts J, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853--a study by the EORTC breast cancer cooperative group and EORTC radiotherapy group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(21):3381–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Mascarel I, MacGrogan G, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Vincent-Salomon A, Soubeyran I, Picot V, et al. Epithelial atypia in biopsies performed for microcalcifications. Practical considerations about 2,833 serially sectioned surgical biopsies with a long follow-up. Virchows Arch. 2007;451(1):1–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaaban AM, Sloane JP, West CS, Moore FR, Foster CS. Histopathological types of benign breast lesions and the risk of breast cancer, case-control study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(4):421–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Said SM, Visscher DW, Nassar A, Frank RD, Vierkant RA, Frost MH, Ghosh K, Radisky DC, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC. Flat epithelial atypia and risk of breast cancer: a Mayo cohort study. Cancer. 2015 May 15;121(10):1548–55. doi:10.1002/cncr.29243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee TY, Macintosh RF, Rayson D, Barnes PJ. Flat epithelial atypia on breast needle core biopsy: a retrospective study with clinical-pathological correlation. Breast J. 2010;16(4):377–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rajan S, Sharma N, Dall BJ, Shaaban AM. What is the significance of flat epithelial atypia and what are the management implications? J Clin Pathol. 2011;64(11):1001–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rakha EA, Ho BC, Naik V, Sen S, Hamilton LJ, Hodi Z, et al. Outcome of breast lesions diagnosed as lesion of uncertain malignant potential (B3) or suspicious of malignancy (B4) on needle core biopsy, including detailed review of epithelial atypia. Histopathology. 2011;58(4):626–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Verschuur-Maes AH, van Deurzen CH, Monninkhof EM, van Diest PJ. Columnar cell lesions on breast needle biopsies: is surgical excision necessary? A systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255(2):259–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stomper PC, Cholewinski SP, Penetrante RB, Harlos JP, Tsangaris TN. Atypical hyperplasia: frequency and mammographic and pathologic relationships in excisional biopsies guided with mammography and clinical examination. Radiology. 1993;189(3):667–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, Fechner RE, Kempson RL, Gelman R, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(12):1133–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rakha EA, Bennett RL, Coleman D, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, UK Natioanl Co-ordinating Committee for Breast Pathology. Review of the national external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J Clin Pathol. 2016;70:51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee AHS, Anderson N, Carder P, Cooke J, Deb R, Ellis IO, et al. Guidelines for non-operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. Royal College of Pathologists. June 2016. (https://www.rcpath.org/resourceLibrary/g150-non-op-reporting-breast-cancer-screening-jun16-pdf.html).

  21. Dupont WD, Parl FF, Hartmann WH, Brinton LA, Winfield AC, Worrell JA, et al. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer. 1993;71(4):1258–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fitzgibbons PL, Henson DE, Hutter RV. Benign breast changes and the risk for subsequent breast cancer: an update of the 1985 consensus statement. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122(12):1053–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lakhani SR. The transition from hyperplasia to invasive carcinoma of the breast. J Pathol. 1999;187(3):272–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Strachan C, Horgan K, Millican-Slater RA, Shaaban AM, Sharma N. Outcome of a new patient pathway for managing B3 breast lesions by vacuum-assisted biopsy: time to change current UK practice? J Clin Pathol. 2016;69(3):248–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R, Bodian C. Lobular neoplasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ) of the breast. Cancer. 1978;42(2):737–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vos CB, Cleton-Jansen AM, Berx G, de Leeuw WJ, ter Haar NT, van Roy F, et al. E-cadherin inactivation in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: an early event in tumorigenesis. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(9):1131–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lakhani SR, Ellis I, Schnitt S, Tan PH, Van de Vijver M. WHO classification of tumours of the breast: international agency for research on Lyon cancer; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Foote FW, Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a rare form of mammary cancer. Am J Pathol. 1941;17(4):491–6.3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2003;361(9352):125–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ben-David MA, Kleer CG, Paramagul C, Griffith KA, Pierce LJ. Is lobular carcinoma in situ as a component of breast carcinoma a risk factor for local failure after breast-conserving therapy? Results of a matched pair analysis. Cancer. 2006;106(1):28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Carder P, Shaaban A. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Diagn Histopathol. 2012;18(3):119–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen YY, Hwang ES, Roy R, DeVries S, Anderson J, Wa C, et al. Genetic and phenotypic characteristics of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(11):1683–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sullivan ME, Khan SA, Sullu Y, Schiller C, Susnik B. Lobular carcinoma in situ variants in breast cores: potential for misdiagnosis, upgrade rates at surgical excision, and practical implications. Arch Pathol Lab Medicine. 2010;134(7):1024–8.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pieri A, Harvey J, Bundred N. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: can the evidence guide practice? World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(3):546–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Carder PJ, Shaaban A, Alizadeh Y, Kumarasuwamy V, Liston JC, Sharma N. Screen-detected pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (PLCIS): risk of concurrent invasive malignancy following a core biopsy diagnosis. Histopathology. 2010;57(3):472–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Khoury T, Karabakhtsian RG, Mattson D, Yan L, Syriac S, Habib F, et al. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: clinicopathological review of 47 cases. Histopathology. 2014;64(7):981–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Fadare O, Dadmanesh F, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Snyder R, Stephen Mitchell J, Tot T, et al. Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia [lobular carcinoma in situ] with comedo-type necrosis: a clinicopathologic study of 18 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(11):1445–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 Biomark Prev. 1997;6(5):297–301.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 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(20):4721–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Buckley ES, Webster F, Hiller JE, Roder DM, Farshid G. A systematic review of surgical biopsy for LCIS found at core needle biopsy - do we have the answer yet? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(2):168–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hussain M, Cunnick GH. Management of lobular carcinoma in-situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia of the breast--a review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(4):279–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rakha EA, Lee AH, Jenkins JA, Murphy AE, Hamilton LJ, Ellis IO. Characterization and outcome of breast needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(6):1417–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sapino A, Frigerio A, Peterse JL, Arisio R, Coluccia C, Bussolati G. Mammographically detected in situ lobular carcinomas of the breast. Virchows Arch. 2000;436(5):421–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nielsen M, Christensen L, Andersen J. Radial scars in women with breast cancer. Cancer. 1987;59(5):1019–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jacobs TW, Byrne C, Colditz G, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer. NEJM. 1999;340(6):430–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bunting DM, Steel JR, Holgate CS, Watkins RM. Long term follow-up and risk of breast cancer after a radial scar or complex sclerosing lesion has been identified in a benign open breast biopsy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(8):709–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sanders ME, Page DL, Simpson JF, Schuyler PA, Dale Plummer W, Dupont WD. Interdependence of radial scar and proliferative disease with respect to invasive breast carcinoma risk in patients with benign breast biopsies. Cancer. 2006;106(7):1453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sloane JP, Mayers MM. Carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions: importance of lesion size and patient age. Histopathology. 1993;23(3):225–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Andacoglu O, Kanbour-Shakir A, Teh YC, Bonaventura M, Ozbek U, Anello M, et al. Rationale of excisional biopsy after the diagnosis of benign radial scar on core biopsy: a single institutional outcome analysis. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(1):7–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Brenner RJ, Jackman RJ, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Philpotts L, Deutch BM, et al. Percutaneous core needle biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(5):1179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. El-Sayed ME, Rakha EA, Reed J, Lee AH, Evans AJ, Ellis IO. Predictive value of needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Histopathology. 2008;53(6):650–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Page DL, Salhany KE, Jensen RA, Dupont WD. Subsequent breast carcinoma risk after biopsy with atypia in a breast papilloma. Cancer. 1996;78(2):258–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Giurescu ME, McCullough AE, Gray RJ. Papillary lesions on core breast biopsy: excisional biopsy for all patients? Am Surg. 2013;79(12):1238–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wiratkapun C, Keeratitragoon T, Lertsithichai P, Chanplakorn N. Upgrading rate of papillary breast lesions diagnosed by core-needle biopsy. Diag Interv Radiol. 2013;19(5):371–6.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Park BW, Kim SI. Benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed at US-guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: clinical and US features predictive of upgrade to malignancy. Radiology. 2011;258(1):81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rajan S, Shaaban AM, Dall BJ, Sharma N. New patient pathway using vacuum-assisted biopsy reduces diagnostic surgery for B3 lesions. Clin Rad. 2012;67(3):244–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Visscher DW, Frost MH, Hartmann LC, Frank RD, Vierkant RA, McCullough AE, et al. Clinicopathologic features of breast cancers that develop in women with previous benign breast disease. Cancer. 2016;122(3):378–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Jacobs TW, Byrne C, Colditz G, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Pathologic features of breast cancers in women with previous benign breast disease. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115(3):362–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Studies, King’s College London, London, UK

    Sarah E. Pinder FRCPath

  2. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2GW, UK

    Abeer M. Shaaban FRCPath

Authors
  1. Sarah E. Pinder FRCPath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abeer M. Shaaban FRCPath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abeer M. Shaaban FRCPath .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Medical School Department of Oncology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Lynda Wyld

  2. Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece

    Christos Markopoulos

  3. Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Marjut Leidenius

  4. Department of Oncology & Radiotherapy, Gdańsk Medical University Department of Oncology & Radiotherapy, Gdańsk, Poland

    Elżbieta Senkus-Konefka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pinder, S.E., Shaaban, A.M. (2018). Pathology of High-Risk Breast Lesions. In: Wyld, L., Markopoulos, C., Leidenius, M., Senkus-Konefka, E. (eds) Breast Cancer Management for Surgeons. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56673-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56673-3_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56671-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56673-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation