How Do We Approach Benign Proliferative Lesions?

Breast Cancer (B Overmoyer, Section Editor)
  • 51 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Breast Cancer

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The aim of this review is to summarize recently published literature addressing atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), lobular neoplasia (atypical lobular hyperplasia [ALH] and classic lobular carcinoma in situ [C-LCIS]), non-classic lobular carcinoma in situ (NC-LCIS), papillary lesions, and flat epithelial atypia (FEA).

Recent Findings

While ADH, ALN, and C-LCIS are well-established markers of an increased risk of future breast cancers, the risk implications are less clear for papillary lesions and FEA. NC-LCIS is the least well-characterized lesion, with scant published literature on its natural history and surgical management when encountered on needle biopsy.

Summary

Recent data suggest that lobular neoplasia on core biopsy of a BI-RADS ≤ 4 concordant lesion does not require an excision, while ADH, atypical papillomas, and NC-LCIS should be excised. Evidence on FEA and papillomas without atypia suggests a low risk of upgrade on excision, and prospective studies on the upgrade of these lesions are ongoing.

Keywords

Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) Lobular neoplasia (atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and classic lobular carcinoma in situ (C-LCIS)) Non-classic lobular carcinoma in situ (NC-LCIS) Papillary breast lesions Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Faina Nakhlis declares that she has no conflict 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.
    Mercado CL. BI-RADS update. Radiol Clin N Am. 2014;52:481–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2014.02.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoda SA, Brogi E, Koerner FC, Rosen PP, editors. Rosen’s breast pathology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen CV, Albarracin CT, Whitman GJ, Lopez A, Sneige N. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in directional vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: considerations for surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:752–61.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1127-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;3:36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3022.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;7:211–7.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;372:78–89.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1407164.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 1997;204:485–8.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.204.2.9240540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9-versus 11-gauge. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:229–34.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoang JK, Hill P, Cawson JN. Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy? Breast. 2008;17:282–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.10.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kohr JR, Eby PR, Allison KH, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, et al. Risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia after stereotactic breast biopsy: effects of number of foci and complete removal of calcifications. Radiology. 2010;255:723–30.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09091406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menen RS, Ganesan N, Bevers T, Ying J, Coyne R, Lane D, et al. Long-term safety of observation in selected women following core biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:70–6.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5512-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Giurescu ME, McCullough AE, Gray RJ. Atypical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsy: an automatic trigger for excisional biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3264–9.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2575-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dominici L, Liao GS, Brock J, Iglehart JD, Lotfi P, Meyer J, et al. Large needle core biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia: results of surgical excision. Breast J. 2012;18:506–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2012.01296.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Long term clinical follow-up of atypical ductal hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ in breast core needle biopsies. Pathology. 2016;48:25–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2015.11.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mooney KL, Bassett LW, Apple SK. Upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions diagnosed on core needle biopsy: a single-institution experience and literature review. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:1471–84.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polat AK, Soran A, Kanbour-Shakir A, Menekse E, Levent Balci F, Johnson R. The role of molecular biomarkers for predicting adjacent breast cancer of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Cancer Biomark. 2016;17:293–300.  https://doi.org/10.3233/CBM-160641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cecchini RS, Cronin WM, Robidoux A, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1652–62.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, et al. Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: preventing breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3:696–706.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goss PE, Ingle JN, Ales-Martinez JE, Cheung AM, Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2381–91.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1103507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, Dowsett M, Knox J, Cawthorn S, et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383:1041–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62292-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bevers T, Ward JH, Arun B, Colditz G, Cowan KH, Daly M, et al. NCCN breast cancer risk reduction guidelines, version 1.2017: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf.
  22. 22.
    Rosen PP: Lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia. In: Rosen’s breast pathology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkin; 2001. p. 581–618.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beute BJ, Kalisher L, Hutter RV. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: clinical, pathologic, and mammographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:257–65.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.157.2.1853802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bauer VP, Ditkoff BA, Schnabel F, Brenin D, El-Tamer M, Smith S. The management of lobular neoplasia identified on percutaneous core breast biopsy. Breast J. 2003;9:4–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foster MC, Helvie MA, Gregory NE, Rebner M, Nees AV, Paramagul C. Lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical lobular hyperplasia at core-needle biopsy: is excisional biopsy necessary? Radiology. 2004;231:813–9.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2313030874.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liberman L, Sama M, Susnik B, Rosen PP, LaTrenta LR, Morris EA, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ at percutaneous breast biopsy: surgical biopsy findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:291–9.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.2.10430122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O'Driscoll D, Britton P, Bobrow L, Wishart GC, Sinnatamby R, Warren R. Lobular carcinoma in situ on core biopsy-what is the clinical significance? Clin Radiol. 2001;56:216–20.  https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2000.0615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Derhagopian RP, Gould EW. Lobular neoplasia in breast core needle biopsy specimens is not associated with an increased risk of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:797–9.  https://doi.org/10.1309/T4XF-C61J-C95Y-VR4Q.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dmytrasz K, Tartter PI, Mizrachy H, Chinitz L, Rosenbaum Smith S, Estabrook A. The significance of atypical lobular hyperplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy. Breast J. 2003;9:10–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Middleton LP, Grant S, Stephens T, Stelling CB, Sneige N, Sahin AA. Lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy: when should it be excised? Mod Pathol. 2003;16:120–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MP.0000051930.68104.92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arpino G, Allred DC, Mohsin SK, Weiss HL, Conrow D, Elledge RM. Lobular neoplasia on core-needle biopsy—clinical significance. Cancer. 2004;101:242–50.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cangiarella J, Guth A, Axelrod D, Darvishian F, Singh B, Simsir A, et al. Is surgical excision necessary for the management of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy? A report of 38 cases and review of the literature. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:979–83. https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165(2008)132[979:ISENFT]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chaudhary S, Lawrence L, McGinty G, Kostroff K, Bhuiya T. Classic lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: a clinical and radio-pathologic correlation study with follow-up excision biopsy. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:762–71.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2012.221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murray MP, Luedtke C, Liberman L, Nehhozina T, Akram M, Brogi E. Classic lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia at percutaneous breast core biopsy: outcomes of prospective excision. Cancer. 2013;119:1073–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27841.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Nakhlis F, Gilmore L, Gelman R, Bedrosian I, Ludwig K, Hwang ES, et al. Incidence of adjacent synchronous invasive carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma in-situ in patients with lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: results from a prospective multi-institutional registry (TBCRC 020). Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:722–8.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4922-4. This is a prospective, multi-institutional, single arm trial of excisional biopsies for lobular neoplasia of core biopsy specifically designed to best estimate the upgrade rate to carcinoma. One of its other strengths is central pathology review. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    •• 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;33:3945–52.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.4743. This study reports the largest series of patients with C-LCIS with the longest prospective follow-up to date, detailing the natural history of C-LCIS, including the future breast cancer risk magnitude. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frost AR, Tsangaris TN, Silverberg SG. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Pathol Case Rev. 1996;1:27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sneige N, Wang J, Baker BA, Krishnamurthy S, Middleton LP. Clinical, histopathologic, and biologic features of pleomorphic lobular (ductal-lobular) carcinoma in situ of the breast: a report of 24 cases. Mod Pathol. 2002;15:1044–50.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MP.0000027624.08159.19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gomes DS, Porto SS, Balabram D, Gobbi H. Inter-observer variability between general pathologists and a specialist in breast pathology in the diagnosis of lobular neoplasia, columnar cell lesions, atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9:121.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-9-121.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Georgian-Smith D, Lawton TJ. Calcifications of lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1255–9.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.5.1761255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lavoue V, Graesslin O, Classe JM, Fondrinier E, Angibeau H, Leveque J. Management of lobular neoplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy: study of 52 biopsies with follow-up surgical excision. Breast. 2007;16:533–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.04.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chivukula M, Haynik DM, Brufsky A, Carter G, Dabbs DJ. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (PLCIS) on breast core needle biopsies: clinical significance and immunoprofile. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1721–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817dc3a6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Carder PJ, Shaaban A, Alizadeh Y, Kumarasuwamy V, Liston JC, Sharma N. Screen-detected pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (PLCIS): risk of concurrent invasive malignancy following a core biopsy diagnosis. Histopathology. 2010;57:472–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03634.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Niell B, Specht M, Gerade B, Rafferty E. Is excisional biopsy required after a breast core biopsy yields lobular neoplasia? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:929–35.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Meroni S, Bozzini AC, Pruneri G, Moscovici OC, Maisonneuve P, Menna S, et al. Underestimation rate of lobular intraepithelial neoplasia in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1651–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3132-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Flanagan MR, Rendi MH, Calhoun KE, Anderson BO, Javid SH. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ: radiologic-pathologic features and clinical management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:4263–9.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4552-x.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nakhlis F, Harrison BT, Lester S, Hughes KS, Coopey SB, King TA. Evaluating the risk of upgrade to invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS on excision following a diagnosis of non-classic lobular carcinoma in situ. [Poster at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX]. In press Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Downs-Kelly E, Bell D, Perkins GH, Sneige N, Middleton LP. Clinical implications of margin involvement by pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:737–43.  https://doi.org/10.1043/2010-0204-OA.1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Neal L, Sandhu NP, Hieken TJ, Glazebrook KN, Mac Bride MB, Dilaveri CA, et al. Diagnosis and management of benign, atypical, and indeterminate breast lesions detected on core needle biopsy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89:536–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.02.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nakhlis F, Ahmadiyeh N, Lester S, Raza S, Lotfi P, Golshan M. Papilloma on core biopsy: excision vs. observation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1479–82.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4091-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Weisman PS, Sutton BJ, Siziopikou KP, Hansen N, Khan SA, Neuschler EI, et al. Non-mass-associated intraductal papillomas: is excision necessary? Hum Pathol. 2014;45:583–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2013.10.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rizzo M, Linebarger J, Lowe MC, Pan L, Gabram SG, Vasquez L, et al. Management of papillary breast lesions diagnosed on core-needle biopsy: clinical pathologic and radiologic analysis of 276 cases with surgical follow-up. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214:280–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Khan S, Diaz A, Archer KJ, Lehman RR, Mullins T, Cardenosa G, et al. Papillary lesions of the breast: to excise or observe? Breast J 2017 Aug 27 [Epub ahead of print]. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12907.
  54. 54.
    Armes JE, Galbraith C, Gray J, Taylor K. The outcome of papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed by standard core needle biopsy within a BreastScreen Australia service. Pathology. 2017;49:267–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2016.12.346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hong YR, Song BJ, Jung SS, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Chae BJ. Predictive factors for upgrading patients with benign breast papillary lesions using a core needle biopsy. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19:410–6.  https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2016.19.4.410.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pareja F, Corben AD, Brennan SB, Murray MP, Bowser ZL, Jakate K, et al. Breast intraductal papillomas without atypia in radiologic-pathologic concordant core-needle biopsies: rate of upgrade to carcinoma at excision. Cancer. 2016;122:2819–27.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30118.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nayak A, Carkaci S, Gilcrease MZ, Liu P, Middleton LP, Bassett RL Jr, et al. Benign papillomas without atypia diagnosed on core needle biopsy: experience from a single institution and proposed criteria for excision. Clin Breast Cancer. 2013;13:439–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2013.08.007.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ko D, Kang E, Park SY, Kim SM, Jang M, Yun B, et al. The management strategy of benign solitary intraductal papilloma on breast Core biopsy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17:367–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.03.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Boufelli G, Giannotti MA, Ruiz CA, Barros N, Chala LF, Maesaka JY, et al. Papillomas of the breast: factors associated with underestimation. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2017. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000343.
  60. 60.
    Tatarian T, Sokas C, Rufail M, Lazar M, Malhotra S, Palazzo JP, et al. Intraductal papilloma with benign pathology on breast Core biopsy: to excise or not? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2501–7.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5182-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jaffer S, Bleiweiss IJ, Nagi C. Incidental intraductal papillomas (<2 mm) of the breast diagnosed on needle core biopsy do not need to be excised. Breast J. 2013;19:130–3.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12073.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Swapp RE, Glazebrook KN, Jones KN, Brandts HM, Reynolds C, Visscher DW, et al. Management of benign intraductal solitary papilloma diagnosed on core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1900–5.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2846-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Shamonki J, Chung A, Huynh KT, Sim MS, Kinnaird M, Giuliano A. Management of papillary lesions of the breast: can larger core needle biopsy samples identify patients who may avoid surgical excision? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4137–44.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3191-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mosier AD, Keylock J, Smith DV. Benign papillomas diagnosed on large-gauge vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy which span <1.5 cm do not need surgical excision. Breast J. 2013;19:611–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lewis JT, Hartmann LC, Vierkant RA, Maloney SD, Shane Pankratz V, Allers TM, et al. An analysis of breast cancer risk in women with single, multiple, and atypical papilloma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:665–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lu Q, Tan EY, Ho B, Chen JJ, Chan PM. Surgical excision of intraductal breast papilloma diagnosed on core biopsy. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82:168–72.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2011.05969.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver M, editors. WHO classification of tumours, volume 4. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2012.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schnitt SJ, Vincent-Salomon A. Columnar cell lesions of the breast. Adv Anat Pathol. 2003;10:113–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Becker AK, Gordon PB, Harrison DA, Hassell PR, Hayes MM, van Niekerk D, et al. Flat ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 1A diagnosed at stereotactic core needle biopsy: is excisional biopsy indicated? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:682–8.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8090.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rudin AV, Hoskin TL, Fahy A, Farrell AM, Nassar A, Ghosh K, et al. Flat epithelial atypia on core biopsy and upgrade to cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3549–58.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6059-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kunju LP, Kleer CG. Significance of flat epithelial atypia on mammotome core needle biopsy: Should it be excised? Hum Pathol. 2007;38:35–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2006.08.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Khoumais NA, Scaranelo AM, Moshonov H, Kulkarni SR, Miller N, McCready DR, et al. Incidence of breast cancer in patients with pure flat epithelial atypia diagnosed at core-needle biopsy of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:133–8.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2591-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bianchi S, Bendinelli B, Castellano I, Piubello Q, Renne G, Cattani MG, et al. Morphological parameters of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) in stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle core biopsies do not predict the presence of malignancy on subsequent surgical excision. Virchows Arch. 2012;461:405–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-012-1279-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dialani V, Venkataraman S, Frieling G, Schnitt SJ, Mehta TS. Does isolated flat epithelial atypia on vacuum-assisted breast core biopsy require surgical excision? Breast J. 2014;20:606–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Said SM, Visscher DW, Nassar A, Frank RD, Vierkant RA, Frost MH, et al. Flat epithelial atypia and risk of breast cancer: a Mayo cohort study. Cancer. 2015;121:1548–55.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29243.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Aroner SA, Collins LC, Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Tamimi RM. Columnar cell lesions and subsequent breast cancer risk: a nested case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:R61.  https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2624.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bevers T, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, Calhoun KE, Daly M, Farrar W, et al. NCCN breast cancer screening and diagnosis guidelines, version 1.2017: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast-screening.pdf.
  78. 78.
    Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Surgical Oncology, Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations