Advertisement

Breast Atypia as a Biomarker of Risk

  • Amy C. DegnimEmail author
Risk and Prevention (ME Wood, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Risk and Prevention

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Provide a summary of available evidence on breast atypia as a biomarker of risk.

Recent Findings

With an increase in independent studies on atypical hyperplasia (AH), knowledge has advanced recently regarding its subsequent associated breast cancer risk. For women with AH, absolute risk can be estimated generally as ~ 1% per year, and a greater extent of disease appears to further increase risk. Although both breasts are at increased risk, the risk is higher for the ipsilateral breast. In women with AH, a family history of breast cancer does not confer significantly increased risk. Risk is similar for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), with some reports suggesting mildly higher risk for ALH. Prevention medications reduce breast cancer risk by ~ 70% in AH.

Summary

Women with AH should be counseled on their increased risk and the option of prevention medication.

Keywords

Atypical hyperplasia Breast Risk Risk prediction Breast cancer Biomarker 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(3):146–51.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198501173120303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(10):1095–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carter CL, Corle DK, Micozzi MS, Schatzkin A, Taylor PR. A prospective study of the development of breast cancer in 16,692 women with benign breast disease. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128(3):467–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    London SJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Colditz GA. A prospective study of benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 1992;267(7):941–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Lingle WL, Degnim AC, Ghosh K, et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(3):229–37.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa044383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coopey SB, Mazzola E, Buckley JM, Sharko J, Belli AK, Kim EM, et al. The role of chemoprevention in modifying the risk of breast cancer in women with atypical breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(3):627–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2318-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Donaldson AR, McCarthy C, Goraya S, Pederson HJ, Sturgis CD, Grobmyer SR, et al. Breast cancer risk associated with atypical hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ initially diagnosed on core-needle biopsy. Cancer. 2018;124(3):459–65.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31061 This paper reports breast cancer risk in a modern cohort of women with high-risk histologic findings that were diagnosed percutaneously, confirming breast cancer risk similar to women with high-risk lesions diagnosed by surgical excision. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Lange J, Jaffer S, Rosenberg R, Miglioretti DL. Subsequent breast cancer risk following diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia on needle biopsy. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(1):36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3022 In this multicenter screening mammography cohort, risk of invasive breast cancer in women with ADH appears lower than estimates from cohorts of women undergoing breast biopsy. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pankratz VS, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Vierkant RA, Ghosh K, Vachon CM, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(33):5374–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.8833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boughey JC, Hartmann LC, Anderson SS, Degnim AC, Vierkant RA, Reynolds CA, et al. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(22):3591–6.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55(11):2698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marshall LM, Hunter DJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Byrne C, London SJ, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1997;6(5):297–301.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer. 2007;109(2):180–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Collins LC, Aroner SA, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ, Tamimi RM. Breast cancer risk by extent and type of atypical hyperplasia: an update from the Nurses’ Health Studies. Cancer. 2016;122(4):515–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29775 In the Nurses’ Health Study, there was no significant association of the extent of atypical hyperplasia of with subsequent breast cancer risk. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou WB, Xue DQ, Liu XA, Ding Q, Wang S. The influence of family history and histological stratification on breast cancer risk in women with benign breast disease: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011;137(7):1053–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-011-0979-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. The influence of family history on breast cancer risk in women with biopsy-confirmed benign breast disease: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer. 2006;107(6):1240–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast--risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):78–89.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1407164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2003;361(9352):125–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12230-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Page DL, Kidd TE Jr, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW. Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol. 1991;22(12):1232–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, Frost MH, Sellers TA, Vierkant RA, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2671–7.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.0217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Radisky DC, Frost MH, Vierkant RA, Frank RD, et al. Breast cancer risk by the extent and type of atypical hyperplasia. Cancer. 2016;122(19):3087–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    •• Degnim AC, Winham SJ, Frank RD, Pankratz VS, Dupont WD, Vierkant RA, et al. Model for predicting breast cancer risk in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(18):1840–6.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.75.9480 This is a new breast cancer risk prediction model specifically designed for women with atypical hyperplasia that was developed in the Mayo Clinic Benign Breast Disease Cohort and validated in the Nashville Breast Cohort. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, Patil S, Mautner SK, Park A, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a 29-year longitudinal experience evaluating clinicopathologic features and breast cancer risk. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(33):3945–52.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.4743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    •• Degnim AC, Dupont WD, Radisky DC, Vierkant RA, Frank RD, Frost MH, et al. Extent of atypical hyperplasia stratifies breast cancer risk in 2 independent cohorts of women. Cancer. 2016;122(19):2971–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30153 In the Nashville and Mayo Clinic Benign Breast Disease Cohorts, the number of foci of atypical hyperplasia is significantly associated with subsequent breast cancer risk, with increasing risk observed in women with more foci of atypia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J, Goncalves R, Sanati S, Creighton CJ, et al. Ki67 proliferation index as a tool for chemotherapy decisions during and after neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor treatment of breast cancer: results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1031 Trial (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1061–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.4406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Santisteban M, Reynolds C, Barr Fritcher EG, Frost MH, Vierkant RA, Anderson SS, et al. Ki67: a time-varying biomarker of risk of breast cancer in atypical hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121(2):431–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0534-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hieken TJ, Carter JM, Hawse JR, Hoskin TL, Bois M, Frost M, et al. ERbeta expression and breast cancer risk prediction for women with atypias. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2015;8(11):1084–92.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Howe LR, Chang SH, Tolle KC, Dillon R, Young LJ, et al. HER2/neu-induced mammary tumorigenesis and angiogenesis are reduced in cyclooxygenase-2 knockout mice. Cancer Res. 2005;65(21):10113–9.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Visscher DW, Pankratz VS, Santisteban M, Reynolds C, Ristimaki A, Vierkant RA, et al. Association between cyclooxygenase-2 expression in atypical hyperplasia and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(6):421–7.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nasir A, Chen DT, Gruidl M, Henderson-Jackson EB, Venkataramu C, McCarthy SM, et al. Novel molecular markers of malignancy in histologically normal and benign breast. Pathol Res Int. 2011;2011:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/489064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ma XJ, Salunga R, Tuggle JT, Gaudet J, Enright E, McQuary P, et al. Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(10):5974–9.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0931261100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations