Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intraductal Proliferative Lesions

  • Chapter
Essentials of Diagnostic Breast Pathology

  • 1798 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5.1.6 Further Reading

  1. Azzopardi JG. Problems in breast pathology. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 213–214.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bankfalvi A, Ludwig A, De-Hesselle B, et al. Different proliferative activity of the glandular and myoepithelial lineages in benign proliferative and early malignant breast diseases. Mod Pathol 2004;17:1051–1061.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bazzocchi F, Santini D, Marinelli G, et al. Juvenile papillomatosis (epitheliosis) of the breast. A clinical and pathologic study of 13 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1986;86:745–748.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Boecker W, Buerger H. Evidence of progenitor cells of glandular and myoepithelial cell lineages in the human adult female breast epithelium: a new progenitor (adult stem) cell concept. Cell Prolif 2003;36(Suppl):73–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boecker W, Moll R, Dervan P, et al. Usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast is a committed stem (progenitor) cell lesion distinct from atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. J Pathol 2002;198:458.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boecker W, Bier B, Freytag G, et al. An immunohistochemical study of the breast using antibodies to basal and luminal keratins, alphasmooth muscle actin, vimentin, collagen IV and laminin. Part 1: Normal breast and benign proliferative lesions. Virchows Arch (A) 1992:421:315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R, et al. Prognostic significance of benign proliferative breast disease. Cancer 1993;71:3896–3907.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bratthauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Assessment of lesions coexisting with various grades of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast. Virchows Arch 2004;444:340–344.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burbano RR, Netto JB, de Paula Philbert PM, et al. Mammary epithelial hyperplasias: Alterations related solely to proliferation? Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996;41:95–101.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Carter C, Corle D, Micozzi M, et al. A prospective study of the development of breast cancer in 16,692 women with benign breast disease. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:467–477.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Diallo R, Schaefer KL, Poremba C, et al. Monoclonality in normal epithelium and hyperplastic and neoplastic lesions of the breast. J Pathol 2001;193:27–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 1985;312:146–151.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Farshid G, Moinfar F, Meredith DJ, et al. Spindle cell ductal carcinoma in situ. An unusual variant of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia that simulates ductal hyperplasia or a myoepithelial proliferation. Virchows Arch 2001;439:70–77.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gong G, DeVries S, Chew KL, et al. Genetic changes in paired atypical and usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast by comparative genomic hybridization. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:2410–2414.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Haagensen CD. Diseases of the breast, 3rd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 118–124.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lacroix-Triki M, Mery E, Voigt JJ, et al. Value of cytokeratin 5/6 immunostaining using D5/16 B4 antibody in the spectrum of proliferative intraepithelial lesions of the breast. A comparative study with 34betaE12 antibody. Virchows Arch 2003;442:548–554.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lakhani S, Slack D, Hamoudi R, et al. Detection of allelic imbalance indicates that a proportion of mammary hyperplasia of usual type are clonal, neoplastic proliferations. Lab Invest 1996;74:129–135.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lerwill MF. Current practical applications of diagnostic immunohistochemistry in breast pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:1076–1091.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moinfar F, Denk H. Mammary intraepithelial neoplasia: A logical concept? Breast J 1998;4:287–288.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moinfar F, Man YG, Lininger RA, et al. Use of keratin 34betaE12 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of mammary intraepithelial neoplasiaductal type (benign and malignant intraductal proliferations of the breast). Am J Surg Pathol 1998;23:1048–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  21. O’Connell P, Pekkel V, Fuqua SA, et al. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:697–703.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Otterbach F, Bankfalvi A, Bergner S, et al. Cytokeratin 5/6 immunohistochemistry assists the differential diagnosis of atypical proliferations of the breast. Histopathology 2000;37:232–240.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Page DL, Anderson TJ, Rogers LW. Epithelial hyperplasia. In: Page DL, Anderson TJ (eds). Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1988, pp. 120–156.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Putti TC, Pinder SE, Elston CW, et al. Breast pathology practice: most common problems in a consultation service. Histopathology 2005;47:445–457.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:209–221.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tan PH, Aw My, Yip G, et al. Cytokeratins in papillary lesions of the breast: is there a role in distinguishing intraepithelial papilloma from papillary ductal carcinoma in situ? Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:625–632.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tavassoli FA. Mammary intraepithelial neoplasia. Breast J 1997;3:48–58.

    Google Scholar 

5.2.5 Further Reading

  1. Bratthauer GL, Moinfar F, Stamatakos MD, et al. Combined E-cadherin and high molecular weight cytokeratin immunoprofile differentiates lobular, ductal, and hybrid mammary intraepithelial neoplasias. Hum Pathol 2002;33:620–627.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chitemerere M, Andersen TJ, Holm R, et al. TP53 alterations in atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996;41:103–109.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chuaqui RF, Zhuang Z, Emmert-Buck MR, et al. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 11q13 in atypical hyperplasia and in situ carcinoma of the breast. AM J Pathol 1997;150:297–303.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 1985;312:146–151.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dupont W, Parl F, Hartmann W, et al. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer 1993;71:1258–1265.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Foucar E. Carcinoma-in-situ of the breast: have pathologists run amok? Lancet 1996;347:707–708.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gillettt CE, Lee AH, Millis RR, et al. Cyclin D1 and associated proteins in mammary ductal carcinoma in situ and atypical ductal hyperplasia. J Pathol 1998;184:396–400.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ichihara S, Koshikawa T, Nakumara S, et al. Epithelial hyperplasia of usual type expresses both S100-alpha and S100-beta in a heterogeneous pattern but ductal carcinoma in situ can express only S100-alpha in a monotonous pattern. Histopathology 1997;30:533–541.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kasami M, Vnencak-Jones CL, Manning S, et al. Loss of heterozygosity and microsatellite instability in breast hyperplasia. No obligate correlation of these genetic alterations with subsequent malignancy. Am J Pathol 1997;150:1925–1932.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kayaselcuk F, Nursal TZ, Polat A, et al. Expression of surviving, bcl-2, p53 and bax in breast carcinoma and ductal intraepithelial neoplasia (DIN 1a). J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2004;23:105–112.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Krieger N, Hiatt RA. Risk of breast cancer after benign breast diseases. Variation by histologic type, degree of atypia, age at biopsy, and length of follow-up. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:619–631.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lakhani S, Collins N, Stratton M, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast. Clonal proliferation exhibiting loss of heterozygosity on chromosomes 16q and 17p. J Clin Pathol 1995;48:611–615.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lininger RA, Tavassoli FA. Atypical intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. In: Silverstein MJ (ed). Ductal carcinoma in situ. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moinfar F, Denk H. Mammary intraepithelial neoplasia: a logical concept? Breast J 1998;4:287–288.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Moinfar F, Man YG, Bratthauer GL, et al. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type (“clinging ductal carcinoma in situ”): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer 2000;88:2072–2081

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Connell P, Pekkel V, Fuqua S, et al. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:697–703.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Landenberger M. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer 1982;49:751–758.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long term follow-up study. Cancer 1985;55:2698–2708.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Page DL, Vander Zwaag R, Rogers LW, et al. Relation between component parts of fibrocystic disease complex and breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1978;61:1055–1063.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Page DL, Dupont WD. Anatomic markers of human premalignancy and risk of breast cancer. Cancer 1990;66:1326–1335.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Palazzo J, Hyslop T. Hyperplastic ductal and lobular lesions and carcinoma in situ of the breast: Reproducibility of current diagnostic criteria among community and academic based pathologists. Breast J 1998;4:230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:209–221.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silverberg SG. Misconception about mammary intraepithelial neoplasia (MIN). Breast J 1999;5:73–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer 1990;65:518–529.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tavassoli FA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: introduction of the concept of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 1998;11:140–154.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tavassoli FA. Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast. Virchows Arch 2001;438:221–227.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tavassoli FA, Hoefler H, Rosai J, et al. Intraductal proliferative lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds). World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics. Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, 2003, pp. 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tavassoli FA. Breast pathology: rationale for adopting the ductal intraepithelial neoplasia (DIN) classification. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2005;2:116–117.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

5.3.6 Further Reading

  1. Azzopardi JG. Problems in breast pathology. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 192–210.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brathauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Assessment of lesions coexisting with various grades of ductal intraepithelial neoplasias of the breast. Virchows Arch 2004;444:340–344.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fraser JL, Raza S, Chorny K, et al. Columnar alteration with prominent apical snouts and secretions: a spectrum of changes frequently present in breast biopsies performed for microcalcifications. Am J Surg Pathol 1998;22:1521–1527.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldstein NS, O’Malley BA. Cancerization of small ecstatic ducts of the breast by ductal carcinoma in situ cells with apocrine snouts: a lesion associated with tubular carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 1997;107:561–566.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ho BC, Tan PH. Flat epithelial atypia: concept and controversies of an intraductal lesion of the breast. Pathology 2005;37:105–111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koerner FC, Oyama T, Maluf H. Morphological observations regarding the origins of atypical cystic lobules (low-grade clinging carcinoma of flat type). Virchows Arch 2001;439:523–530.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moinfar F, Man YG, Bratthauer GL, et al. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type (“clinging ductal carcinoma in situ” ) — a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer 2000;88:2072–2081.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Oyama T, Iijima K, Takei H, et al. Atypical cystic lobule of the breast: an early stage of low-grade ductal carcinoma in-situ. Breast Cancer 2000;7:326–331.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sahoo S, Recant WM. Triad of columnar cell alteration, lobular carcinoma in situ, and tubular carcinoma of the breast. Breast J 2005;11:140–142.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schnitt SJ. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: flat epithelial atypia-classification, pathologic features and clinical significance. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:263–268.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaaban AM, Sloane JP, West CR, et al. Histopathologic types of benign breast lesions and risk of breast cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:421–430.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Simpson PT, Gale T, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Columnar cell lesions of the breast: the missing link in breast cancer progression? A morphological and molecular analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:734–746.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tavassoli FA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: introduction of the concept of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 1998;11:140–154.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tavassoli FA, Hoefler H, Rosai J, et al. Intraductal proliferative lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds). World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics. Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, 2003, pp. 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

5.4.8 Further Reading

  1. Bloodgood JC. Cancer of the breast. Figures which show that education can increase the number of cures. JAMA 1916;66:552–553.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bodian Ca, Perzin KH, Lattes R, et al. Reproducibility and validity of pathologic classifications of benign breast disease and implications for clinical applications. Cancer 1993;71:3908–3913.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chitemerere M, Andersen TJ, Holm R, et al. TP53 alterations in atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996;41:103–109.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gillettt CE, Lee AH, Millis RR, et al. Cyclin D1 and associated proteins in mammary ductal carcinoma in situ and atypical ductal hyperplasia. J Pathol 1998;184:396–400

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lakhani S, Collins N, Stratton M, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast. Clonal proliferation exhibiting loss of heterozygosity on chromosomes 16q and 17p. J Clin Pathol 1995;48:611–615.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moinfar F, Man YG, Lininger RA, et al. Use of keratin 34betaE12 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of mammary intraepithelial neoplasia-ductal type (benign and malignant intraductal proliferations of the breast). Am J Surg Pathol 1998;23:1048–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moinfar, Denk H. Mammary intraepithelial neoplasia. A logical concept? Breast J 1998;4:287–288.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moinfar F, Man YG, Bratthauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type (“clinging ductal carcinoma in situ” ). A simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer 2000;88:2072–2081.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Shaughnessy JA. Treating breast precancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2000;1(Suppl). S 74–79.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Rogers LW. Atypical ductal hyperplasia. In: Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Page DL, Anderson TJ (eds). Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1987, pp. 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Landenberger M. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer 1982;49:751–758.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long term follow-up study. Cancer 1985;55:2698–2708.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Page Dl. Cancer risk assessment in benign breast biopsies. Human Pathol 1986;17:871–874.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Page DL, Dupont WD. Anatomic markers of human premalignancy and risk of breast cancer. Cancer 1990;66:1326–1335.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 1992;23:1095–1097.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Palli D, Galli M, Bianchi S, et al. Reproducibility of histological diagnosis of breast lesions: results of a panel in Italy. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:603–607.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Palazzo J, Hyslop T. Hyperplastic ductal and lobular lesions and carcinoma in situ of the breast: Reproducibility of current diagnostic criteria among community and academic based pathologists. Breast J 1998;4:230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pinder SE, Ellis IO. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) — current definitions and classification. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:254–257.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Purushotham Ad. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: problems associated with management of pre-invasive lesions. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:309–312.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reis-Filho JS, Lakhani SR. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: genetic alterations in pre-invasive lesions. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:313–319.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:209–221.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosen PP. “Borderline” breast lesions. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:1110–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rosen PP (ed). Breast pathology. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rosen PP, Oberman HA. Intraductal hyperplasia with atypism. In: Atlas of tumor pathology. Tumors of the mammary glands. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington DC, 1993, pp. 139–143.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schnitt S, Connolly J, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:1133–1143.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer 1990;65:518–529.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tavassoli FA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: introduction of the concept of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 1998;11:140–154.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tavassoli FA. Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast. Virchows Arch 2001;438:221–227.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tavassoli FA, Hoefler H, Rosai J, et al. Intraductal proliferative lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds). World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics. Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. IARC Press, Lyon, 2003, pp. 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tavassoli FA. Breast pathology: rationale for adopting the ductal intraepithelial neoplasia (DIN) classification. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2005;2:116–117.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tavassoli FA. Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia (atypical intraductal hyperplasia). In: Pathology of the breast. Appleton & Lange, Stamford, CT, 1992, 226–240.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Van de Vijver MJ, Peterse H. The diagnosis and management of preinvasive breast disease: pathological diagnosis-problems with existing classifications. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:269.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vogel VG. Reducing the risk of breast cancer with tamoxifen in women at increased risk. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(Suppl):87S–92S.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Winchester DJ, Bernstein JR, Jeske JM, et al. Upstaging of atypical ductal hyperplasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. Arch Surg 2003;138:619–622.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

5.5.8 Further Reading

  1. Ackerman L, Katzenstein A. The concept of minimal breast cancer and pathologist’s role in the diagnosis of “early carcinoma.” Cancer 1977;39:2755–2763.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Azzopardi JG. Problems in breast pathology. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1979, pp. 266–273.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bellamy COC, McDonald C, Salter DM, et al. Noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: the relevance of histologic categorization. Hum Pathol 1993;24:16–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Betsill WL, Rosen PP, Lieberman PH, et al. Intraductal carcinoma. Long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone. JAMA 1978;239:1863–1867.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Black MM, Zachrau RE, Hankey BF, et al. Prognostic significance of in situ carcinoma associated with invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 1996;78:778–788.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bloodgood JC. Borderline breast tumors. Ann Surg 1931;93:235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bloodgood JC. Comedo carcinoma (or comedo-adenoma) of the female breast. Am J Cancer 1934;22:842–849.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bloodgood JC. Cancer of the breast. Figures which show that education can increase the number of cures. JAMA 1916;66:552–553.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bobrow LG, Happerfield LC, Gregory WM, et al. The classification of ductal carcinoma and its association with biological markers. Sem Diagn Pathol 1994;11:199–207.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bornstein BA, Recht A, Connolly JL, et al. Results of treating ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 1991;67:7–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Carter D, Connolly J, Ellis IO, et al. Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 1997;28:1221–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cendan JC, Coco D, Copeland EM. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:194–198.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Potter CR, Foschini MP, Schelhout AM, et al. Immunohistochemical study of neu protein overexpression in clinging in situ ductal carcinoma of the breast. Virchows Arch (A) 1993;422:375–380.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Done SJ, Kneafsey P, Alexander F, et al. Nuclear grading and necrosis in DCIS in the national Breast Cancer Screening Study. Use of a histologic scoring system to predict outcome in patients. Mod Pathol 1996;9:17A.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini M, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11:223–235.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eusebi V, Foschini MP, Cook MG, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast with special emphasis on clinging carcinoma. Semin Diagn Pathol 1989;6:165–173.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, et al. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Eng J Med 1995;333:1456–1461.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher ER, Costantino J, Fisher B, et al. Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project (NSABP) protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma (ductal carcinoma in situ). Cancer 1995;75:1310–1319.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fisher ER, Costantino J, Redmond, et al. Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy with radiation therapy for treatment on intraductal breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1581–1586.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Foucar E. Carcinoma-in-situ of the breast: have pathologists run amok? Lancet 1996;347:707–708.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Foucar E. Do pathologists play dice? Uncertainty and early histopathological diagnosis of common malignancies. Histopathology 1997;31:495–502.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Harrison M, Coyne JD, Gorey T, et al. Comparison of cytomorphological and architectural heterogeneity in mammographically-detected ductal carcinoma in situ. Histopathology 1996;28:445–450.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Holland R, Peterse J, Millis R, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ. A proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11:167–180.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kell MR, Morrow M. An adequate margin of excision in ductal carcinoma in situ. BMJ 2005;331:789–790.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, et al. Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer 1989;63:618–624.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. MacDonald HR, Silverstein MJ, Mabry H, et al. Local control in ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision alone: incremental benefit of larger margins. Am J Surg 2005;190:521–525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meijnen P, Peterse JL, Oldenburg HS, et al. Changing patterns in diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:833–839.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Morrow M. The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 1995;76:1113–1115.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Moriya T, Hirakawa H, Suzuki T, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ and related lesions of the breast: recent advances in pathology practice. Breast Cancer 2004;11:325–333.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ohuchi N, Furuta A, Mori S, et al. Management of ductal carcinoma in situ with nipple discharge: intraductal spreading of carcinoma is an unfavorable pathologic factor for breast-conserving surgery. Cancer 1994;74:1294–1302.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. O’Malley FP, Page DL, Nelson EH, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with apocrine cytology: definition of a borderline category. Hum Pathol 1994;25:164–168.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, 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. Cancer 1995;76:1197–1200.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Price P, Sinnett HD, Gusterson B, et al. Duct carcinoma in situ: predictors of local recurrence and progression in patients treated by surgery alone. Br J Cancer 1990;61:869–872.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Quinn cm, Osttrowski JL, Parkin GJS, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the clinical significance of histological classification. Histopathology 1997;30:113–119.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rodriguez N, Diaz LK, Wiley EL. Predictors of residual disease in repeat excision for lumpectomies with margins less than 0.1 cm. Clin Breast Cancer 2005;6:169–172.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosen PP. Letter to the editor. “Borderline” breast lesions. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:110–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sanders ME, Schyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 2005;103:2481–2484.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shoo S, Recant WM, Jaskowiak N, et al. Defining negative margins in DCIS patients treated with breast conservation therapy: the University of Chicago experience. Breast J 2005;11:242–247.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL. Classification of ductal carcinoma in situ: striving for clinical relevance in the era of breast conserving therapy. Hum Pathol 1997;28:877–880.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schwartz GF, Finkel GC, Garcia JC, et al. Subclinical ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: treatment by local excision and surveillance alone. Cancer 1992;70:2468–2474.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Silverstein MJ. Insanity of ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein MJ (ed). Ductal carcinoma in situ. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1997, pp. 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Silverstein MJ. Van Nuys experience by treatment. In: Silverstein MJ (ed). Ductal carcinoma in situ. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1997, pp. 443–447.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, et al. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1995;345:1154–1157.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long term results of breast conservation. Cancer 1995;76:257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tavassoli FA, Norris H. Intraductal apocrine carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study of 37 cases. Mod Pathol 1994;7:813–818.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Tsang WYW, Chan JKC. Endocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (E-DCIS) of the breast. A form of low-grade DCIS with distinctive clinicopathologic and biologic characteristics. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:921–943.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Intraductal Proliferative Lesions. In: Essentials of Diagnostic Breast Pathology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45120-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45120-4_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-45117-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45120-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation