Advertisement

Diagnostic Management of the Atypical Hyperplasias: Core Biopsy Alone Versus Excisional Biopsy

  • Emily Siegel
  • Alice ChungEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) are two indeterminate lesions found on breast core needle biopsy (CNB). These lesions have the potential to upstage to carcinoma on excisional biopsy. A number of studies have attempted to identify factors that may be associated with a low rate of upgrading to malignancy, thereby allowing conservative management to avoid unnecessary surgery. Patients with ADH on CNB continue to have a substantial risk of upgrade. In contrast, some patients with ALH on CNB with concordant pathologic, radiologic, and clinical information have a relatively low risk of upstaging on excision. Therefore, patients with ADH on CNB must be excised while a discussion of the risks and benefits are recommended for patients diagnosed with ALH.

Keywords

Atypical ductal hyperplasia Atypical lobular hyperplasia Core needle biopsy Upstaging Carcinoma Concordance 

References

  1. 1.
    Calhoun BC, Collins LC. Recommendations for excision following core needle biopsy of the breast: a contemporary evaluation of the literature. Histopathology. 2016;68(1):138–51. PMID: 26768035.  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12852.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simpson JF. Update on atypical epithelial hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. Pathology. 2009;41(1):36–9. PMID: 19089738.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313020802568097.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Dupont WD. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1271–2. PMID: 25806929.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1501046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neal L, Sandhu NP, Hieken TJ, Glazebrook KN, Mac Bride MB, Dilaveri CA, et al. Diagnosis and management of benign, atypical, and indeterminate breast lesions detected on core needle biopsy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(4):536–47. PMID: 24684875.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobs TW, Pliss N, Kouria G, Schnitt SJ. Carcinomas in situ of the breast with indeterminate features: role of E-cadherin staining in categorization. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(2):229–36. PMID: 11176072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simpson PT, Gale T, Fulford LG, Reis-Filho JS, Lakhani SR. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: pathology of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(5):258–62. PMID: 12927036.  https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr624.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allred DC, Mohsin SK, Fuqua SA. Histological and biological evolution of human premalignant breast disease. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2001;8(1):47–61. PMID: 11350726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bombonati A, Sgroi DC. The molecular pathology of breast cancer progression. J Pathol. 2011;223(2):307–17. PMID: 21125683.  https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164(5):1111–3. PMID: 7717215.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.164.5.7717215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khoury T, Li Z, Sanati S, Desouki MM, Chen X, Wang D, et al. The risk of upgrade for atypical ductal hyperplasia detected on magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy: a study of 100 cases from four academic institutions. Histopathology. 2016;68(5):713–21. PMID: 26291517.  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pearlman MD, Griffin JL. Benign breast disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(3):747–58. PMID: 20733462.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ee9fc7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartmann LC, Radisky DC, Frost MH, Santen RJ, Vierkant RA, Benetti LL, et al. Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: a longitudinal cohort study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014;7(2):211–7. PMID: 24480577.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Long term clinical follow-up of atypical ductal hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ in breast core needle biopsies. Pathology. 2016;48(1):25–9. PMID: 27020205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2015.11.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menes TS, Rosenberg R, Balch S, Jaffer S, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL. Upgrade of high-risk breast lesions detected on mammography in the breast cancer surveillance consortium. Am J Surg. 2014;207(1):24–31. PMID: 24112677.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.05.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pettine S, Place R, Babu S, Williard W, Kim D, Carter P. Stereotactic breast biopsy is accurate, minimally invasive, and cost effective. Am J Surg. 1996;171(5):474–6. PMID: 8651388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00007-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silverstein MJ, Recht A, Lagios MD, Bleiweiss IJ, Blumencranz PW, Gizienski T, et al. Special report: consensus conference III. Image-detected breast cancer: state-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(4):504–20. PMID: 19801324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.07.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, Geller BM, Onega T, Tosteson AN, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA. 2015;313(11):1122–32. PMID: 25781441.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.1405.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elmore JG, Nelson HD, Pepe MS, Longton GM, Tosteson AN, Geller B, et al. Variability in Pathologists’ interpretations of individual breast biopsy slides: a population perspective. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(10):649–55. PMID: 26999810.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0964.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gomes DS, Porto SS, Balabram D, Gobbi H. Inter-observer variability between general pathologists and a specialist in breast pathology in the diagnosis of lobular neoplasia, columnar cell lesions, atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9:121. PMID: 24948027.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-9-121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLaughlin CT, Neal CH, Helvie MA. Is the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy of calcifications different for digital and film-screen mammography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(4):917–22. PMID: 25247961.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11862.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kohr JR, Eby PR, Allison KH, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, et al. Risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia after stereotactic breast biopsy: effects of number of foci and complete removal of calcifications. Radiology. 2010;255(3):723–30. PMID: 20173103.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09091406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Polat AK, Kanbour-Shakir A, Andacoglu O, Polat AV, Johnson R, Bonaventura M, et al. Atypical hyperplasia on core biopsy: is further surgery needed? Am J Med Sci. 2012;344(1):28–31. PMID: 22205116.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e318234cc67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weinfurtner RJ, Patel B, Laronga C, Lee MC, Falcon SL, Mooney BP, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided core needle breast biopsies resulting in high-risk histopathologic findings: upstage frequency and lesion characteristics. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15(3):234–9. PMID: 25579460.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2014.12.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verheyden C, Pages-Bouic E, Balleyguier C, Cherel P, Lepori D, Laffargue G, et al. Underestimation rate at MR imaging-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a multi-institutional retrospective study of 1509 breast biopsies. Radiology. 2016;281(3):708–19. PMID: 27355898.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mesurolle B, Perez JC, Azzumea F, Lemercier E, Xie X, Aldis A, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1389–94. PMID: 24848840.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10864.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sen LQ, Berg WA, Hooley RJ, Carter GJ, Desouki MM, Sumkin JH. Core breast biopsies showing lobular carcinoma in situ should be excised and surveillance is reasonable for atypical lobular hyperplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(5):1132–45. PMID: 27532153.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Linsk A, Mehta TS, Dialani V, Brook A, Chadashvili T, Houlihan MJ, et al. Surgical upgrade rate of breast atypia to malignancy: an academic center’s experience and validation of a predictive model. Breast J. 2017 PMID: 28833923.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Middleton LP, Grant S, Stephens T, Stelling CB, Sneige N, Sahin AA. Lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy: when should it be excised? Mod Pathol. 2003;16(2):120–9. PMID: 12591964.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MP.0000051930.68104.92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murray MP, Luedtke C, Liberman L, Nehhozina T, Akram M, Brogi E. Classic lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia at percutaneous breast core biopsy: outcomes of prospective excision. Cancer. 2013;119(5):1073–9. PMID: 23132235.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27841.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Degnim AC, King TA. Surgical management of high-risk breast lesions. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(2):329–40. PMID: 23464689.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2012.12.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Middleton LP, Sneige N, Coyne R, Shen Y, Dong W, Dempsey P, et al. Most lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed on core needle biopsy can be managed clinically with radiologic follow-up in a multidisciplinary setting. Cancer Med. 2014;3(3):492–9. PMID: 24639339.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.223.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wagoner MJ, Laronga C, Acs G. Extent and histologic pattern of atypical ductal hyperplasia present on core needle biopsy specimens of the breast can predict ductal carcinoma in situ in subsequent excision. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131(1):112–21. PMID: 19095574.  https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPGHEJ2R8UYFGP.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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(10):3264–9. PMID: 22878619.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2575-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khoury T, Chen X, Wang D, Kumar P, Qin M, Liu S, et al. Nomogram to predict the likelihood of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on a core needle biopsy in mammographically detected lesions. Histopathology. 2015;67(1):106–20. PMID: 25529860.  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Subhawong AP, Subhawong TK, Khouri N, Tsangaris T, Nassar H. Incidental minimal atypical lobular hyperplasia on core needle biopsy: correlation with findings on follow-up excision. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(6):822–8. PMID: 20431477.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181dd8516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhao C, Desouki MM, Florea A, Mohammed K, Li X, Dabbs D. Pathologic findings of follow-up surgical excision for lobular neoplasia on breast core biopsy performed for calcification. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138(1):72–8. PMID: 22706860.  https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPYG48TUTFIBMR.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chaudhary S, Lawrence L, McGinty G, Kostroff K, Bhuiya T. Classic lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: a clinical and radio-pathologic correlation study with follow-up excision biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(6):762–71. PMID: 23307062.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2012.221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nakhlis F, Gilmore L, Gelman R, Bedrosian I, Ludwig K, Hwang ES, et al. Incidence of adjacent synchronous invasive carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma in-situ in patients with lobular Neoplasia on Core biopsy: results from a prospective multi-institutional registry (TBCRC 020). Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(3):722–8. PMID: 26542585.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4922-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Susnik B, Day D, Abeln E, Bowman T, Krueger J, Swenson KK, et al. Surgical outcomes of lobular neoplasia diagnosed in core biopsy: prospective study of 316 cases. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(6):507–13. PMID: 27425222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2016.06.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations