Breast pathology practice: most common problems in a consultation service

Considerable progress has been made in understanding breast lesions utilizing molecular methods, but conventional morphology, simple immunohistochemical stains and common sense still prevail in diagnosing the vast majority of breast disease. The focus of this review is to identify the most common breast lesions sent to our consultation practice, and to reiterate salient diagnostic features, differential diagnoses and common pitfalls in identifying these lesions. Separation of epithelial proliferative lesions and differentiation between usual epithelial hyperplasia (UEH) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) are the most common problems encountered in our Consultation practice. Differentiation between UEH and ADH is based on the assumption that ADH is a clonal process, recognized by a uniform phenotype and more recently described immunohistochemical markers such as differential cytokeratin and also hormone receptor expression. Difficulty in subtyping invasive carcinomas and exclusion of in situ and/or invasive carcinoma in a sclerosing lesion is also commonly noted. Finally, problems in distinguishing various papillary and fibroepithelial lesions are also encountered. The use of common immunohistochemical stains such as various cytokeratin and myoepithelial markers, E‐cadherin and hormone receptors is helpful in solving most of these diagnostic dilemmas.

[1]  R. Millis,et al.  Problems in Breast Pathology , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[2]  I. Haigh,et al.  Needle core biopsy can reliably distinguish between benign and malignant papillary lesions of the breast , 2005, Histopathology.

[3]  Melinda F Lerwill,et al.  Current Practical Applications of Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Breast Pathology , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[4]  N. Sneige,et al.  Accuracy of core needle biopsy diagnosis in assessing papillary breast lesions: histologic predictors of malignancy , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[5]  F. O'Malley,et al.  The Spectrum of Apocrine Lesions of the Breast , 2004, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[6]  I. Ellis,et al.  An immunohistochemical study of metaplastic spindle cell carcinoma, phyllodes tumor and fibromatosis of the breast. , 2003, Human pathology.

[7]  G. MacGrogan,et al.  Central atypical papillomas of the breast: a clinicopathological study of 119 cases , 2003, Virchows Archiv.

[8]  Ian O Ellis,et al.  The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) – current definitions and classification , 2003, Breast Cancer Research.

[9]  S. Lakhani,et al.  Salivary gland-like tumours of the breast: surgical and molecular pathology , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  宝来 威,et al.  多彩な組織像を呈した乳腺Carcinoma with metaplasiaの一例 , 2003 .

[11]  G. Bratthauer,et al.  Combined E-cadherin and high molecular weight cytokeratin immunoprofile differentiates lobular, ductal, and hybrid mammary intraepithelial neoplasias. , 2002, Human pathology.

[12]  G. Bratthauer,et al.  Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia: previously unexplored aspects assessed in 775 cases and their clinical implications , 2002, Virchows Archiv.

[13]  D. Visscher,et al.  Clinicopathologic Analysis of Invasive Micropapillary Differentiation in Breast Carcinoma , 2001, Modern Pathology.

[14]  A. Gown,et al.  Low-Grade (Fibromatosis-Like) Spindle Cell Carcinoma of the Breast , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[15]  S. Fuqua,et al.  Histological and biological evolution of human premalignant breast disease. , 2001, Endocrine-related cancer.

[16]  Denley,et al.  Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast arising within complex sclerosing lesion: a report of five cases , 2000, Histopathology.

[17]  I. Ellis,et al.  A critical appraisal of existing classification systems of epithelial hyperplasia and in situ neoplasia of the breast with proposals for future methods of categorization: where are we going? , 1999, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[18]  Eusebi,et al.  Eosinophilic and granular cell tumors of the breast. , 1999, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[19]  S. Lakhani The transition from hyperplasia to invasive carcinoma of the breast , 1999, The Journal of pathology.

[20]  L. Liberman,et al.  Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  J. Rosai,et al.  Oncocytic carcinoma (malignant oncocytoma) of the breast. , 1998, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[22]  M. Cranor,et al.  Cystosarcoma phyllodes in adolescent girls and young women: a study of 45 patients. , 1998, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[23]  M. Stratton,et al.  Detection of allelic imbalance indicates that a proportion of mammary hyperplasia of usual type are clonal, neoplastic proliferations. , 1996, Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology.

[24]  W. Dupont,et al.  Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15–25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy , 1995, Cancer.

[25]  R. Millis,et al.  Carcinoma in situ involving sclerosing adenosis: a mimic of invasive breast carcinoma , 1995, Histopathology.

[26]  S. Pinder,et al.  Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a clinicopathological review of thirty‐two cases , 1995, Histopathology.

[27]  M. Stratton,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: clonal proliferation with loss of heterozygosity on chromosomes 16q and 17p. , 1995, Journal of clinical pathology.

[28]  L. Liberman,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  M. Stratton,et al.  Loss of heterozygosity in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast , 1995, The Journal of pathology.

[30]  L. Liberman,et al.  Stereotaxic core biopsy of breast carcinoma: accuracy at predicting invasion. , 1995, Radiology.

[31]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological-radiological correlations in benign lesions excised during a breast screening programme. , 1994, Clinical radiology.

[32]  W. Lefkowitz,et al.  Intraductal (intracystic) papillary carcinoma of the breast and its variants: a clinicopathological study of 77 cases. , 1994, Human pathology.

[33]  J. Sloane,et al.  Carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions: importance of lesion size and patient age , 1993, Histopathology.

[34]  D. Page,et al.  Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. , 1992, Human pathology.

[35]  P. Rosen,et al.  Low-Grade Adenosquamous Carcinoma: A Variant of Metaplastic Mammary Carcinoma , 1987, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[36]  H. Evans,et al.  Cystosarcoma phyllodes. A clinicopathologic study of 26 cases , 1986, Cancer.

[37]  W. Dupont,et al.  Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast: A long-term follow-up study , 1986 .

[38]  M. Merino,et al.  Intracystic papillary carcinoma of the breast after mastectomy, radiotherapy or excisional biopsy alone , 2006, Cancer.

[39]  W. Dupont,et al.  Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: Follow‐up after biopsy only , 1982, Cancer.

[40]  J. Gogas Cystosarcoma phyllodes: a clinicopathological analysis of 14 cases. , 1979, International surgery.

[41]  P. Rosen,et al.  Intraductal carcinoma. Long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone. , 1978 .

[42]  L. Barnes,et al.  Cystosarcoma phyllodes. A clinicopathologic analysis of 42 cases , 1978, Cancer.