The role of radiological–pathological correlation in diagnosing early breast cancer: the pathologist’s perspective

Early breast carcinoma, defined as purely in situ cancer and invasive carcinomas < 15 mm, represents the most frequent category of breast carcinomas in diagnostic routine in a regularly screened population. These tumors are usually detected with mammography screening and are preoperatively characterized with radiological imaging. The role of pathology in preoperative settings is to help understand the subgross morphology and to confirm malignancy in biopsy material. Postoperatively, the pathologist needs to verify the size of the cancer (defined as the largest dimension of the largest invasive focus), the extent of the disease (defined as the area or the volume of the breast tissue containing all the malignant foci), the distribution of the in situ and invasive lesions (as unifocal, multifocal, or diffuse), and intratumoral and intertumoral heterogeneity (in addition to determining margin status, histologic tumor type, hormone receptor status, and other parameters). Despite their small size, early breast carcinomas often exhibit complex morphology as they are multifocal/diffuse in about 60% and extensive (occupying an area ≥ 4 cm) in 40% of the cases. Routine use of large-format histopathology technique is a prerequisite for detailed correlation of the radiologic and histopathologic findings and for the correct assessment of these parameters. Breast pathologists must be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different imaging modalities and have detailed information about the radiological findings before work-up of the operative specimen. Multidisciplinary preoperative and postoperative tumor board meetings are essential in guiding the pathologists and in confirming the radiological findings. Interdisciplinary diagnosis is inevitably becoming the new gold standard in the diagnosis and management of early breast carcinomas.

[1]  P. Jackson,et al.  A comparison of large block macrosectioning and conventional techniques in breast pathology , 2004, Virchows Archiv.

[2]  J. V. van Engelshoven,et al.  Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[3]  U. W. Jayasinghe,et al.  Multifocal breast cancer and survival: each focus does matter particularly for larger tumours. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[4]  F. Tucker New Era Pathologic Techniques in the Diagnosis and Reporting of Breast Cancers , 2008 .

[5]  Tibor Tot,et al.  Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors , 2003, European Radiology.

[6]  B. Brandt,et al.  Allelic imbalances of the egfr gene as key events in breast cancer progression--the concept of committed progenitor cells. , 2008, Current cancer drug targets.

[7]  Hutter Rv Minimal breast cancer. , 1981 .

[8]  J. Hendriks,et al.  Histologic multifocality of tis, T1–2 breast carcinomas implications for clinical trials of breast‐conserving surgery , 1985, Cancer.

[9]  Yueh-Hsia Chiu,et al.  Mammographic tumor features can predict long‐term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14‐mm invasive breast carcinoma , 2004, Cancer.

[10]  Kornelia Polyak,et al.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast , 2004, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie.

[11]  T. Tot,et al.  Radiological–Pathological Correlation in Diagnosing Breast Carcinoma: The Role of Pathology in the Multimodality Era , 2008, Pathology & Oncology Research.

[12]  L. Tabár,et al.  Casting Type Calcifications: Sign of a Subtype with Deceptive Features , 2007 .

[13]  C. Grossi,et al.  Treatment of early cancer of the breast (T1N0M0 and T2N0M0) on the basis of histologic characteristics. , 1981, Surgery.

[14]  W. Hartmann Minimal breast cancer. An update , 1984, Cancer.

[15]  C. Heaphy,et al.  Mammary field cancerization: molecular evidence and clinical importance , 2009, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[16]  Stephen W Duffy,et al.  A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10–14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study , 2000, The Lancet.

[17]  Tibor Tot,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis of using large-format histology sections in routine diagnostic breast care. , 2010, Breast.

[18]  Tibor Tot,et al.  DCIS, cytokeratins, and the theory of the sick lobe , 2005, Virchows Archiv.

[19]  Tibor Tot,et al.  Clinical relevance of the distribution of the lesions in 500 consecutive breast cancer cases documented in large‐format histologic sections , 2007, Cancer.

[20]  S. Morassut Breast cancer: early detection with mammography - casting type calcifications: sign of a subtype with deceptive features, L Tabár, T Tot, PB Dean (Eds.). Thieme, New York (2007), 325 pages, 975 illustrations, US$129.95, ISBN: 978-1-58890-580-2 , 2008 .

[21]  H. Carmalt Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast, 2nd edn. , 2003 .

[22]  A. D. De Schepper,et al.  Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer , 2004, European Radiology.

[23]  W. Kaiser,et al.  High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[24]  R. Brem,et al.  Breast Cancer: The Art and Science of Early Detection With Mammography: Perception, Interpretation, Histopathologic Correlation , 2008 .

[25]  T. Tot,et al.  The distribution of lesions in 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinomas and its relation to metastatic potential , 2009, Virchows Archiv.

[26]  T. Dimpfl,et al.  Multicentric and multifocal versus unifocal breast cancer: is the tumor-node-metastasis classification justified? , 2010, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[27]  P. Skaane,et al.  Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma , 1999, Acta radiologica.

[28]  R. Hutter Minimal breast cancer. , 1981, Israel journal of medical sciences.

[29]  L. Tabár,et al.  Mammographic–Pathologic Correlation of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast Using Two- and Three-Dimensional Large Histologic Sections , 2005 .

[30]  T. Mohun,et al.  Human breast duct anatomy, the ‘sick lobe’ hypothesis and intraductal approaches to breast cancer , 2006, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[31]  J. Weyler,et al.  MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound , 2004, European Radiology.

[32]  T. Tot The origins of early breast carcinoma. , 2010, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[33]  László Tabár,et al.  Practical Breast Pathology , 2002 .

[34]  R Holland,et al.  Breast carcinomas of limited extent , 2001, Cancer.

[35]  T. Tot The metastatic capacity of multifocal breast carcinomas: extensive tumors versus tumors of limited extent. , 2009, Human pathology.

[36]  K. W. Biesemier,et al.  Enhancement of Mammographic–Pathologic Correlation Utilizing Large Format Histology for Malignant Breast Disease , 2005 .

[37]  T. Tot Towards a renaissance of subgross breast morphology. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[38]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. , 2004, Radiology.

[39]  S. Weinstein,et al.  MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[40]  L. Tabár,et al.  Breast cancer : the art and science of early detection with mammography : perception, interpretation, histopathologic correlation , 2005 .