Abstract
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is routinely performed during pathology practice for various breast lesions. Hormone receptor and HER2 analysis for primary breast carcinoma and cytokeratin staining for sentinel lymph nodes analysis are widely conducted. In addition to those markers, there are several situations in which certain IHC staining is valuable as an ancillary tool. This manuscript will present three useful examples of IHC for making differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lesions. Case 1 is an intraductal papilloma with solid epithelial proliferation, for which diagnosis was resolved by myoepithelial markers and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (HMWCKs). Case 2 is a noninvasive ductal carcinoma with solid and papillary morphology. Many cases with such morphology mimic benign papillomas, but expression of neuroendocrine markers may lead to the correct diagnosis. Case 3 is a benign complex sclerosing lesion, with recognition of a pseudoinvasive process by myoepithelial markers. Although IHC results were excellent in these cases, they are effective only for limited situations. It is important to use IHC with caution, and re-evaluation of histological findings on hematoxylin and eosin stain and clinicopathological correlation of each case is essential.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CK:
-
Cytokeratin
- IHC:
-
Immunohistochemistry
- HE:
-
Hematoxylin and eosin
- FNAC:
-
Fine-needle aspiration biopsy cytology
- SMA:
-
Smooth muscle actin
- DCIS:
-
Ductal carcinoma in situ
- HMWCK:
-
High-molecular-weight cytokeratin
References
Moriya T, Kozuka Y, Kanomata N, Tse GM, Tan PH. The role of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Pathology. 2009;41:68–76.
Moriya T, Kasajima A, Ishida K, Kariya Y, Akahira J, Endoh M, et al. New trends of immunohistochemistry for making differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Med Mol Morphol. 2006;39:8–13.
The Japanese Breast Cancer Society. Histological classification. Breast Cancer. 2005;12:S12–4.
Oyama T, Koener FC. Noninvasive papillary proliferations. Sem Diagn Pathol. 2004;21:32–41.
Mulligan A, O’Malley FP. Papillary lesions of the breast. A review. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14:108–19.
Collins LC, Schnitt SJ. Papillary lesions of the breast. Selected diagnostic and management issues. Histopathology. 2008;52:20–9.
Bhargava R, Dabbs DJ. Use of immunohistochemistry in diagnosis of breast epithelial lesions. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14:93–107.
Wang X, Mori I, Tang W, Nakamura M, Nakamura Y, Sato M, et al. P63 expression in normal, hyperplastic and malignant breast tissues. Breast Cancer. 2002;9:216–9.
Tse GM, Tan PH, Lui PC, Gilks CB, Poon CS, Ma TK, et al. The role of immunohistochemistry for smooth muscle actin, p63, CD10 and cytokeratin 14 in the differential diagnosis of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:315–20.
Ichihara S, Fijimoto T, Hashimoto K, Moritani S, Hasegawa M, Yokoi T, et al. Double immunostaining with p63 and high-molecular-weight cytokeratins distinguishes borderline papillary lesion of the breast. Pathol Int. 2007;57:126–32.
Bocker W, Burger H, Buchwalow IB, Decker T. CK5-positive cells are precursor cells of glandular and myoepithelial cell lineages in the human breast epithelium. A new cell concept as a basis for a better understanding of proliferative breast disease? Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol. 2005;89:45–7.
Tan PH, Aw MY, Yip G, Bay BH, Sil LH, Murugaya S, et al. Cytokeratins in papillary lesions of the breast. Is there a role in distinguishing intraductal papilloma from papillary ductal carcinoma in situ? Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:625–32.
Lerwill MF. Current practical applications of diagnostic immunohistochemistry in breast pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1076–91.
Nassar H, Qureshi H, Volkanadsay N, Visscher D. Clinicopathologic analysis of solid papillary carcinoma of the breast and associated invasive carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:501–7.
Kawasaki T, Nakamura S, Sakamoto G, Murata S, Tsunoda-Shimizu H, Suzuki K, et al. Neuroendocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (NE-DCIS) of the breast. Comparative clinicopathological study of 20 NE-DCIS cases and 274 non-NE-DCIS cases. Histopathology. 2008;41:288–98.
Moritani S, Ichihara S, Kushima R, Okabe H, Bamba M, Kobayashi TK, et al. Myoepithelial cells in solid variant of intraductal papillary carcinoma of the breast. A potential diagnostic pitfall and a proposal of an immunohistochemical panel in the diagnosis with intraductal papilloma with usual ductal hyperplasia. Virchows Arch. 2007;450:539–47.
Rabban J, Koerner FC, Lerwill MF. Solid papillary ductal carcinoma in situ versus usual ductal hyperplasia in the breast: a potentially difficult distinction resolved by cytokeratin 5/6. Hum Pathol. 2006;37:787–93.
Otsuki Y, Yamada M, Shimizu S, Suwa K, Yoshida M, Tanioka F, et al. Solid-papillary carcinoma of the breast. Clinicopathological study of 20 cases. Pathol Int. 2007;57:421–9.
Tse GM, Tan PH, Chaiwun B, Putti TC, Lui PC, Tsang AK, et al. P63 is useful in the diagnosis of mammary metaplastic carcinomas. Pathology. 2006;38:16–20.
Hill CB, Yeh IT. Myoepithelial cell staining patterns of papillary breast lesions. From intraductal papillomas to invasive papillary carcinomas. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123:36–44.
Nicolas MM, Wu Y, Middleton LP, Gilcrease MZ. Loss of myoepithelium is variable in solid papillary carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology. 2007;51:657–65.
Acknowledgments
Part of this study was supported by a Kawasaki Medical School Project Grant (Project No. 20-208S).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Moriya, T., Kanomata, N., Kozuka, Y. et al. Usefulness of immunohistochemistry for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant breast lesions. Breast Cancer 16, 173–178 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0127-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0127-7