Breast Pathology

2020 Edition
| Editors: Anna Sapino, Janina Kulka

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia

  • Werner BoeckerEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62539-3_4740

Synonyms

Atypical intraductal hyperplasia; Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 1B (DIN 1B)

Definition

Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is defined as a local proliferation of evenly spaced monotonous cells with an atypical architecture, characterized by smooth geometrical growth patterns as micropapillae, arcades, Roman bridges, bars crossing the glandular space, and finally full-blown lesions with solid or cribriform growth (Fig. 1). As discussed below, the definition of ADH has undergone remarkable changes. It is the great achievement of Azzopardi who shifted our view from usual ductal hyperplasia to ductal in situ microcancer as the decisive step in early breast cancer development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Further Reading

  1. Aulmann, S., Elsawaf, Z., Penzel, R., Schirmacher, P., & Sinn, H. P. (2009). Invasive tubular carcinoma of the breast frequently is clonally related to flat epithelial atypia and low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 33, 1646–1653.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azzopardi, J. (1979). Problems in breast pathology. London: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  3. Boecker, W., Stenman, G., Schroeder, T., Schumacher, U., Loening, T., Stahnke, L., Löhnert, C., Siering, R. M., Kuper, A., Samoilova, V., Tiemann, M., Korsching, E., & Buchwalow, I. (2017). Multicolor immunofluorescence reveals that p63- and/or K5-positive progenitor cells contribute to normal breast epithelium and usual ductal hyperplasia but not to low grade intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast: New concepts on the cellular hierarchy using in-situ multicolour experiments. Virchows Archiv, 470, 493–504.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Dupont, W. D., & Page, D. L. (1989). Relative risk of breast cancer varies with time since diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia. Human Pathology, 20, 723–725.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Jain, R. K., Mehta, R., Dimitrov, R., Larsson, L. G., Musto, P. M., Hodges, K. B., Ulbright, T. M., Hattab, E. M., Agaram, N., Idrees, M. T., & Badve, S. (2011). Atypical ductal hyperplasia: Interobserver and intraobserver variability. Modern Pathology, 24(7), 917–923.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Lakhani, S. R., Ellis, I. O., Schnitt, S. J., Tan, P. H., & van de Vijver, M. J. (2012). WHO-classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: IARC.Google Scholar
  7. Menes, T. S., Kerlikowske, K., Lange, J., Jaffer, S., Rosenberg, R., & Miglioretti, D. L. (2017). Subsequent breast cancer risk following diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia on needle biopsy. JAMA Oncology, 3, 36–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moinfar, F., Man, Y. G., Bratthauer, G. L., Ratschek, M., & Tavassoli, F. A. (2000). Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type (“clinging ductal carcinoma in situ”): A simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer, 88, 2072–2081.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. O’Malley, F. P., & Bane, A. L. (2004). The spectrum of apocrine lesions of the breast. Advances in Anatomic Pathology, 11, 1–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Page, D. L., & Rogers, L. W. (1992). Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Human Pathology, 23, 1095–1097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Raju, U., Zarbo, R. J., Kubus, J., & Schultz, D. S. (1993). The histologic Spectrum of apocrine breast proliferations: A comparative study of morphology and DNA content by image analysis. Human Pathology, 24, 1973–1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sneige, N., Lim, S. C., Whitman, G., Krishnamurthy, S., Sahin, A. A., Smith, T. L., & Stelling, C. B. (2003). Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Considerations for surgical excision. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 119, 218–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wagoner, M. J., Laronga, C., & Acs, G. (2009). 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. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 131, 112–121.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Weigel, S., Decker, T., Korsching, E., Biesheuvel, C., Wöstmann, A., Böcker, W., Hungermann, D., Roterberg, K., Tio, J., & Heindel, W. (2011). Minimal invasive biopsy results of “uncertain malignant potential” in digital mammography screening: High prevalence but also high predictive value for malignancy. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren, 183, 743–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wells, C. A., Amendoeira, I., Apostolikas, N., et al. (2006). Quality assurance guidelines for pathology. In N. M. Perry, M. Broeders, & C. de Wolf (Eds.), European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (p. 219). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gerhard Domagk-Institute of PathologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany