Premalignant and Malignant Breast Pathology

  • Hans-Peter SinnEmail author


In this chapter, a brief overview will be given about the histopathology of noninvasive (premalignant) lesions and invasive tumors of the breast. The histologic diagnosis still is the basis for the planning of surgical and adjuvant treatment, but also the basis for risk assessment, and for further immunohistologic and molecular evaluation of the lesions. Therefore, a competent histologic workup, preferentially by a specialized breast pathologist, is indispensable in the management of breast disease.


Malignant lesions Premalignant lesions Noninvasive Risk assessment Molecular evaluation Breast pathology Ductal carcinoma in situ Atypical ductal hyperplasia Invasive hyperplasia Lobular neoplasia Invasive lobular carcinoma 


  1. 1.
    Perry N, Broeders M, Wolf C. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2006. 416 p.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calhoun BC, Collins LC. Recommendations for excision following core needle biopsy of the breast: a contemporary evaluation of the literature. Histopathology. 2016;68(1):138–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wells CJ, O’Donoghue C, Ojeda-Fournier H, Retallack HE, Esserman LJ. Evolving paradigm for imaging, diagnosis, and management of DCIS. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(12):918–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drukker CA, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, Cardoso F, Kerlikowske K, Esserman LJ, et al. Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(1):103–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esserman LJ, Thompson IM Jr, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA. 2013;310(8):797–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morrow M, Katz SJ. Addressing overtreatment in DCIS: what should physicians do now? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(12):djv290.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(3):170–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA. 1996;275(12):913–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):9–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, Offman J, Parmar D, Jenkins J, et al. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(1):109–14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lynge E, Ponti A, James T, Majek O, von Euler-Chelpin M, Anttila A, et al. Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the International Cancer Screening Network. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(1):185–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):888–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Masood S. New insights from breast pathology: should we consider low grade DCIS NOT a cancer? Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(Suppl 1):S93–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collins LC, Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy—Results from the nurses’ health study. Cancer. 2005;103(9):1778–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erbas B, Provenzano E, Armes J, Gertig D. The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;97(2):135–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shamliyan T, Wang SY, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Kane RL. Association between patient and tumor characteristics with clinical outcomes in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):121–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, Colburn WJ, Barth A, Gierson ED, et al. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet. 1995;345(8958):1154–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Committee TC. Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 1997;28(11):1221–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinder SE, Duggan C, Ellis IO, Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Bishop H, et al. A new pathological system for grading DCIS with improved prediction of local recurrence: results from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS trial. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(1):94–100.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J, Galan M, Galaburda L, Fu Y, et al. Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Livasy CA, Perou CM, Karaca G, Cowan DW, Maia D, Jackson S, et al. Identification of a basal-like subtype of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 2007;38(2):197–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clark SE, Warwick J, Carpenter R, Bowen RL, Duffy SW, Jones JL. Molecular subtyping of DCIS: heterogeneity of breast cancer reflected in pre-invasive disease. Br J Cancer. 2011;104(1):120–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park K, Han S, Kim HJ, Kim J, Shin E. HER2 status in pure ductal carcinoma in situ and in the intraductal and invasive components of invasive ductal carcinoma determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Histopathology. 2006;48(6):702–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bryan BB, Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Ductal carcinoma in situ with basal-like phenotype: a possible precursor to invasive basal-like breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(5):617–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lester S, Bose S, Chen Y, Connolly J, de Baca M, Fitzgibbons P, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(1):15–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pinder SE. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): pathological features, differential diagnosis, prognostic factors and specimen evaluation. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(Suppl 2):S8–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kallen ME, Sim MS, Radosavcev BL, Humphries RM, Ward DC, Apple SK. A quality initiative of postoperative radiographic imaging performed on mastectomy specimens to reduce histology cost and pathology report turnaround time. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2015;19(5):353–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, Allred DC, Harms SE, Holland R, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(4):586–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dillon MF, Mc Dermott EW, O’Doherty A, Quinn CM, Hill AD, O’Higgins N. Factors affecting successful breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(5):1618–28.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maffuz A, Barroso-Bravo S, Najera I, Zarco G, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Rodriguez-Cuevas SA. Tumor size as predictor of microinvasion, invasion, and axillary metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2006;25(2):223–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sigal-Zafrani B, Lewis JS, Clough KB, Vincent-Salomon A, Fourquet A, Meunier M, et al. Histological margin assessment for breast ductal carcinoma in situ: precision and implications. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(1):81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cheng L, Al-Kaisi NK, Gordon NH, Liu AY, Gebrail F, Shenk RR. Relationship between the size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and residual disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(18):1356–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    MacDonald HR, Silverstein MJ, Mabry H, Moorthy B, Ye W, Epstein MS, et al. Local control in ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision alone: incremental benefit of larger margins. Am J Surg. 2005;190(4):521–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Asjoe FT, Altintas S, Huizing MT, Colpaert C, Marck EV, Vermorken JB, et al. The value of the Van Nuys Prognostic Index in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a retrospective analysis. Breast J. 2007;13(4):359–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    American-Joint-Committee-on-Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York; London: Springer; 2010. xiv, 648 p.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bianchi S, Vezzosi V. Microinvasive carcinoma of the breast. Pathol Oncol Res. 2008;14(2):105–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Werling RW, Hwang H, Yaziji H, Gown AM. Immunohistochemical distinction of invasive from noninvasive breast lesions: a comparative study of p63 versus calponin and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(1):82–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prasad ML, Osborne MP, Giri DD, Hoda SA. Microinvasive carcinoma (T1mic) of the breast: clinicopathologic profile of 21 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(3):422–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee SK, Cho EY, Kim WW, Kim SH, Hur SM, Kim S, et al. The prediction of lymph node metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion by assessing lymphangiogenesis. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(3):225–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Page D, Rogers L. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(10):1095–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lakhani SR, Ellis I, Schnitt S, Tan PH, Vijver M. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2012. 240 p.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Böcker W. Preneoplasia of the breast. A new conceptual approach to proliferative breast disease. Munich: Saunders, Elsevier; 2006. XIX, 587 S p.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nofech-Mozes S, Holloway C, Hanna W. The role of cytokeratin 5/6 as an adjunct diagnostic tool in breast core needle biopsies. Int J Surg Pathol. 2008;16(4):399–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bratthauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Assessment of lesions coexisting with various grades of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast. Virchows Arch. 2004;444(4):340–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gong G, DeVries S, Chew KL, Cha I, Ljung BM, Waldman FM. Genetic changes in paired atypical and usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast by comparative genomic hybridization. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7(8):2410–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Amari M, Suzuki A, Moriya T, Yoshinaga K, Amano G, Sasano H, et al. LOH analyses of premalignant and malignant lesions of human breast: frequent LOH in 8p, 16q, and 17q in atypical ductal hyperplasia. Oncol Rep. 1999;6(6):1277–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lakhani SR, Collins N, Stratton MR, Sloane JP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: clonal proliferation with loss of heterozygosity on chromosomes 16q and 17p. J Clin Pathol. 1995;48(7):611–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reis-Filho J, Lakhani S. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: genetic alterations in pre-invasive lesions. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(6):313–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Menes TS, Rosenberg R, Balch S, Jaffer S, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL. Upgrade of high-risk breast lesions detected on mammography in the breast cancer surveillance consortium. Am J Surg. 2014;207(1):24–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Arpino G, Laucirica R, Elledge R. Premalignant and in situ breast disease: biology and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(6):446–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yeh IT, Dimitrov D, Otto P, Miller AR, Kahlenberg MS, Cruz A. Pathologic review of atypical hyperplasia identified by image-guided breast needle core biopsy. Correlation with excision specimen. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(1):49–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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(3):723–30.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jorns J, Sabel MS, Pang JC. Lobular neoplasia: morphology and management. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(10):1344–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hoda SA, Brogi E, Koerner FC, Rosen PP. Rosen’s breast pathology, 4nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. 1399 p.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Portschy PR, Marmor S, Nzara R, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM. Trends in incidence and management of lobular carcinoma in situ: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(10):3240–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Li CI, Malone KE, Porter PL, Lawton TJ, Voigt LF, Cushing-Haugen KL, et al. Relationship between menopausal hormone therapy and risk of ductal, lobular, and ductal-lobular breast carcinomas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(1):43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hussain M, Cunnick GH. Management of lobular carcinoma in-situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia of the breast—a review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(4):279–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lewis JL, Lee DY, Tartter PI. The significance of lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(13):4124–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    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(5):1073–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rendi MH, Dintzis SM, Lehman CD, Calhoun KE, Allison KH. Lobular in-situ neoplasia on breast core needle biopsy: imaging indication and pathologic extent can identify which patients require excisional biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(3):914–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    D’Alfonso TM, Wang K, Chiu YL, Shin SJ. Pathologic upgrade rates on subsequent excision when lobular carcinoma in situ is the primary diagnosis in the needle core biopsy with special attention to the radiographic target. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(7):927–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hwang E, Nyante S, Yi Chen Y, Moore D, DeVries S, Korkola J, et al. Clonality of lobular carcinoma in situ and synchronous invasive lobular carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100(12):2562–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Vos CB, Cleton-Jansen AM, Berx G, de Leeuw WJ, ter Haar NT, van Roy F, et al. E-cadherin inactivation in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: an early event in tumorigenesis. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(9):1131–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Aulmann S, Penzel R, Longerich T, Funke B, Schirmacher P, Sinn HP. Clonality of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) and metachronous invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;107(3):331–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R. Lobular neoplasia. Long term risk of breast cancer and relation to other factors. Cancer. 1996;78(5):1024–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bratthauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia: previously unexplored aspects assessed in 775 cases and their clinical implications. Virchows Arch. 2002;440(2):134–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Khoury T, Karabakhtsian RG, Mattson D, Yan L, Syriac S, Habib F, et al. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: clinicopathological review of 47 cases. Histopathology. 2014;64(7):981–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Reis-Filho JS, Simpson PT, Jones C, Steele D, Mackay A, Iravani M, et al. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: role of comprehensive molecular pathology in characterization of an entity. J Pathol. 2005;207(1):1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Alvarado-Cabrero I, Picon Coronel G, Valencia Cedillo R, Canedo N, Tavassoli FA. Florid lobular intraepithelial neoplasia with signet ring cells, central necrosis and calcifications: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of ten cases associated with invasive lobular carcinoma. Arch Med Res. 2010;41(6):436–41.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fadare O, Dadmanesh F, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Snyder R, Stephen Mitchell J, Tot T, et al. Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia [lobular carcinoma in situ] with comedo-type necrosis: a clinicopathologic study of 18 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(11):1445–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Shin SJ, Lal A, De Vries S, Suzuki J, Roy R, Hwang ES, et al. Florid lobular carcinoma in situ: molecular profiling and comparison to classic lobular carcinoma in situ and pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(10):1998–2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stein LF, Zisman G, Rapelyea JA, Schwartz AM, Abell B, Brem RF. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast presenting as a mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(6):1799–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Masannat YA, Bains SK, Pinder SE, Purushotham AD. Challenges in the management of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast. 2013;22(2):194–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Brogi E, Murray MP, Corben AD. Lobular carcinoma, not only a classic. Breast J. 2010;16(Suppl 1):S10–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Middleton LP, Palacios DM, Bryant BR, Krebs P, Otis CN, Merino MJ. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: morphology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(12):1650–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ross DS, Hoda SA. Microinvasive (T1mic) lobular carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathologic profile of 16 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(5):750–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Dabbs DJ, Schnitt SJ, Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Baehner FL, Decker T, et al. Lobular neoplasia of the breast revisited with emphasis on the role of E-cadherin immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(7):e1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Viale G. The current state of breast cancer classification. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(Suppl 10):x207–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Pathology and genetics. 3rd ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003. 432 p.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Eggemann H, Kalinski T, Ruhland AK, Ignatov T, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Clinical implications of growth pattern and extension of tumor-associated intraductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15(3):227–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Sinn H, Anton H, Magener A, von Fournier D, Bastert G, Otto H. Extensive and predominant in situ component in breast carcinoma: their influence on treatment results after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34(5):646–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tot T, Gere M, Pekar G, Tarjan M, Hofmeyer S, Hellberg D, et al. Breast cancer multifocality, disease extent, and survival. Hum Pathol. 2011;42(11):1761–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gujam FJ, Going JJ, Edwards J, Mohammed ZM, McMillan DC. The role of lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in predicting survival and methods of detection in patients with primary operable breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;89(2):231–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    McCart Reed AE, Kutasovic JR, Lakhani SR, Simpson PT. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology, biomarkers and ’omics. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:12.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1992;20(6):479–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bertucci F, Orsetti B, Negre V, Finetti P, Rouge C, Ahomadegbe JC, et al. Lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast have distinct genomic and expression profiles. Oncogene. 2008;27(40):5359–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Gruel N, Lucchesi C, Raynal V, Rodrigues MJ, Pierron G, Goudefroye R, et al. Lobular invasive carcinoma of the breast is a molecular entity distinct from luminal invasive ductal carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(13):2399–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Anderson WF, Pfeiffer RM, Dores GM, Sherman ME. Comparison of age distribution patterns for different histopathologic types of breast carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(10):1899–905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Li CI, Uribe DJ, Daling JR. Clinical characteristics of different histologic types of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(9):1046–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D, Holford T. The risk of a contralateral breast cancer among women diagnosed with ductal and lobular breast carcinoma in situ: data from the Connecticut tumor registry. Breast. 2003;12(6):451–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Winchester DJ, Chang HR, Graves TA, Menck HR, Bland KI, Winchester DP. A comparative analysis of lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast: presentation, treatment, and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;186(4):416–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hilleren DJ, Andersson IT, Lindholm K, Linnell FS. Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. Radiology. 1991;178(1):149–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Newstead GM, Baute PB, Toth HK. Invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma: mammographic findings and stage at diagnosis. Radiology. 1992;184(3):623–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Slanger TE, Chang-Claude JC, Obi N, Kropp S, Berger J, Vettorazzi E, et al. Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of clinical breast cancer subtypes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(4):1188–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R, Reynolds C, Czerniecki B, Solin LJ, et al. MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(2):399–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Mann RM, Veltman J, Barentsz JO, Wobbes T, Blickman JG, Boetes C. The value of MRI compared to mammography in the assessment of tumour extent in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(2):135–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257(2):249–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Mitze M, Meyer F, Goepel E, Kleinkauf-Houcken A, Jonat W. Besonderheiten in Klinik und Verlauf beim invasiven lobulären Mammakarzinom. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1991;51(12):973–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Sakr RA, Poulet B, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Clough KB. Clear margins for invasive lobular carcinoma: a surgical challenge. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(4):350–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19(5):403–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hanby A, Hughes T. In situ and invasive lobular neoplasia of the breast. Histopathology. 2008;52(1):58–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Orvieto E, Maiorano E, Bottiglieri L, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Galimberti V, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: results of an analysis of 530 cases from a single institution. Cancer. 2008;113(7):1511–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Talman ML, Jensen MB, Rank F. Invasive lobular breast cancer. Prognostic significance of histological malignancy grading. Acta Oncol. 2007;46(6):803–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Monhollen L, Morrison C, Ademuyiwa FO, Chandrasekhar R, Khoury T. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: a distinctive clinical and molecular breast cancer type. Histopathology. 2012;61(3):365–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Iorfida M, Maiorano E, Orvieto E, Maisonneuve P, Bottiglieri L, Rotmensz N, et al. Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(2):713–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Arpino G, Bardou VJ, Clark GM, Elledge RM. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6(3):R149–56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E, Gusterson BA, Price KN, Gelber RD, et al. Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 international breast cancer study group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(18):3006–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Powe DG, Green AR, Habashy H, Grainge MJ, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(1):73–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wasif N, Maggard MA, Ko CY, Giuliano AE. Invasive lobular vs. ductal breast cancer: a stage-matched comparison of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(7):1862–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Menon S, Green AR, Lee AH, Ellis IO. Histologic grading is an independent prognostic factor in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(1):121–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Borst MJ, Ingold JA. Metastatic patterns of invasive lobular versus invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Surgery. 1993;114(4):637–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Harris M, Howell A, Chrissohou M, Swindell RI, Hudson M, Sellwood RA. A comparison of the metastatic pattern of infiltrating lobular carcinoma and infiltrating duct carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer. 1984;50(1):23–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Jain S, Fisher C, Smith P, Millis RR, Rubens RD. Patterns of metastatic breast cancer in relation to histological type. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(15):2155–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Sastre-Garau X, Jouve M, Asselain B, Vincent-Salomon A, Beuzeboc P, Dorval T, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Clinicopathologic analysis of 975 cases with reference to data on conservative therapy and metastatic patterns. Cancer. 1996;77(1):113–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Silverstein MJ, Lewinsky BS, Waisman JR, Gierson ED, Colburn WJ, Senofsky GM, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Is it different from infiltrating duct carcinoma? Cancer. 1994;73(6):1673–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Toikkanen S, Pylkkanen L, Joensuu H. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast has better short- and long-term survival than invasive ductal carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(9):1234–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Rakha EA, Lee AH, Evans AJ, Menon S, Assad NY, Hodi Z, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: further evidence to support its excellent prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):99–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P, Mastropasqua MG, Luini A, Veronesi P, et al. Outcome of special types of luminal breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(6):1428–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Bae SY, Choi MY, Cho DH, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Yang JH. Mucinous carcinoma of the breast in comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma: clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis. J Breast Cancer. 2011;14(4):308–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Jensen ML, Kiaer H, Andersen J, Jensen V, Melsen F. Prognostic comparison of three classifications for medullary carcinomas of the breast. Histopathology. 1997;30(6):523–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Dellapasqua S, Maisonneuve P, Viale G, Pruneri G, Mazzarol G, Ghisini R, et al. Immunohistochemically defined subtypes and outcome of apocrine breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2013;13(2):95–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Chen L, Fan Y, Lang RG, Guo XJ, Sun YL, Cui LF, et al. Breast carcinoma with micropapillary features: clinicopathologic study and long-term follow-up of 100 cases. Int J Surg Pathol. 2008;16(2):155–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Weigelt B, Kreike B, Reis-Filho JS. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like breast cancers: a genomic profiling analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117(2):273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Tse GM, Tan PH, Putti TC, Lui PC, Chaiwun B, Law BK. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathological review. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(10):1079–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Hui A, Henderson M, Speakman D, Skandarajah A. Angiosarcoma of the breast: a difficult surgical challenge. Breast. 2012;21(4):584–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Vorburger SA, Xing Y, Hunt KK, Lakin GE, Benjamin RS, Feig BW, et al. Angiosarcoma of the breast. Cancer. 2005;104(12):2682–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Farid M, Ong WS, Lee MJ, Jeevan R, Ho ZC, Sairi AN, et al. Cutaneous versus non-cutaneous angiosarcoma: clinicopathologic features and treatment outcomes in 60 patients at a single Asian cancer centre. Oncology. 2013;85(3):182–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Penel N, Marreaud S, Robin YM, Hohenberger P. Angiosarcoma: state of the art and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;80(2):257–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Tan BY, Acs G, Apple SK, Badve S, Bleiweiss IJ, Brogi E, et al. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a consensus review. Histopathology. 2016;68(1):5–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Mitus J, Reinfuss M, Mitus JW, Jakubowicz J, Blecharz P, Wysocki WM, et al. Malignant phyllodes tumor of the breast: treatment and prognosis. Breast J. 2014;20(6):639–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Gnerlich JL, Williams RT, Yao K, Jaskowiak N, Kulkarni SA. Utilization of radiotherapy for malignant phyllodes tumors: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base, 1998–2009. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(4):1222–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Bloom HJ, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957;11(3):359–77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, International Union against Cancer. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2010, xx, 309 p.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    NHS. Pathology reporting of breast disease 2005 [A joint document incorporating the third edition of the NHS breast screening programme’s guidelines for pathology reporting in breast cancer screening and the second edition of the royal college of pathologists’ minimum dataset for breast cancer histopathology]. Available from:
  140. 140.
    Wachtel MS, Halldorsson A, Dissanaike S. Nottingham grades of lobular carcinoma lack the prognostic implications they bear for ductal carcinoma. J Surg Res. 2011;166(1):19–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Schwartz AM, Henson DE, Chen D, Rajamarthandan S. Histologic grade remains a prognostic factor for breast cancer regardless of the number of positive lymph nodes and tumor size: a study of 161 708 cases of breast cancer from the SEER Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(8):1048–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO. The Nottingham prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992;22(3):207–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Mook S, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, van de Velde AO, Visser O, Rutgers SM, et al. Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of prognosis calculation for breast cancer with the online Adjuvant! program: a hospital-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(11):1070–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR. Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol. 2005;205(2):248–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, Harris A, Fox S, Smeds J, et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(4):262–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Lallemand F, Tutt AM, Gillet C, et al. Definition of clinically distinct molecular subtypes in estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas through genomic grade. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(10):1239–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Liedtke C, Hatzis C, Symmans WF, Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Valero V, et al. Genomic grade index is associated with response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(19):3185–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Metzger Filho O, Ignatiadis M, Sotiriou C. Genomic grade index: an important tool for assessing breast cancer tumor grade and prognosis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;77(1):20–9.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Schneeweiss A, Katretchko J, Sinn H, Unnebrink K, Rudlowski C, Geberth M, et al. Only grading has independent impact on breast cancer survival after adjustment for pathological response to preoperative chemotherapy. Anticancer Drugs. 2004;15(2):127–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Allison KH, Kandalaft PL, Sitlani CM, Dintzis SM, Gown AM. Routine pathologic parameters can predict Oncotype DX recurrence scores in subsets of ER positive patients: who does not always need testing? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(2):413–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Mattes MD, Mann JM, Ashamalla H, Tejwani A. Routine histopathologic characteristics can predict oncotype DX(TM) recurrence score in subsets of breast cancer patients. Cancer Invest. 2013;31(9):604–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Auerbach J, Kim M, Fineberg S. Can features evaluated in the routine pathologic assessment of lymph node-negative estrogen receptor-positive stage I or II invasive breast cancer be used to predict the Oncotype DX recurrence score? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(11):1697–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Klein ME, Dabbs DJ, Shuai Y, Brufsky AM, Jankowitz R, Puhalla SL, et al. Prediction of the Oncotype DX recurrence score: use of pathology-generated equations derived by linear regression analysis. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(5):658–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Gilchrist KW, Kalish L, Gould VE, Hirschl S, Imbriglia JE, Levy WM, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of histopathological features in stage II breast cancer. An ECOG study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1985;5(1):3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Longacre TA, Ennis M, Quenneville LA, Bane AL, Bleiweiss IJ, Carter BA, et al. Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(2):195–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Fisher ER, Redmond C, Fisher B. Histologic grading of breast cancer. Pathol Annu. 1980;15(Pt 1):239–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, Dawkins H, Harvey J, Sterrett G, et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol. 1995;26(8):873–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Ellis IO, Coleman D, Wells C, Kodikara S, Paish EM, Moss S, et al. Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(2):138–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F, Dabbs DJ, Decker T, Eusebi V, et al. Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(4):207.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations