Preinvasive Breast Lesions: Detection and Management

  • Sumit Goyal
  • Niti Raizada


Breast cancer is the commonest and the lead cause of cancer deaths worldwide, which accounts for 23% of total cancer load and 14% of cancer-related mortalities. Preinvasive lesions of the breast rank fourth after invasive breast, lung, and colorectal cancer. These lesions are mainly grouped into lobular and ductal in situ carcinomas. This chapter discusses the various modalities used for detection of preinvasive breast lesion including imaging and biopsy of the lesion. This chapter also elaborates on the recent trends in the treatment of the same.


Preinvasive Lobular carcinoma in situ Ductal carcinoma in situ Mammography Breast-conserving surgery Mastectomy 


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGuire A, Brown JA, Malone C, McLaughlin R, Kerin MJ. Effects of age on the detection and management of breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2015;7(2):908–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malvia S, Bagadi SA, Dubey US, Saxena S. Epidemiology of breast cancer in Indian women. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017;13(4):289–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sgroi DC. Preinvasive breast cancer. Annu Rev Pathol. 2010;5:193–221.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts & figures. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
  6. 6.
    Wellings SR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1973;50:1111–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975;55:231–73.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanby AM, Hughes TA. In situ and invasive lobular neoplasia of the breast. Histopathology. 2008;52:58–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanders ME, Schuyler 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(12):2481–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Landenberger M. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer. 1982;49(4):751–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene-expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:8418–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene-expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bergers E, Baak JP, van Diest PJ, van Gorp LH, Kwee WS, Los J, et al. Prognostic implications of different cell cycle analysis models of flow cytometric DNA histograms of 1,301 breast cancer patients: results from the Multicenter Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project (MMMCP). Int J Cancer. 1997;74:260–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55:2698–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:146–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van de Vijver MJ, Peterse H. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: pathological diagnosis—problems with existing classifications. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(5):269.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(10):1095–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roylance R, Gorman P, Hanby A, Tomlinson I. Allelic imbalance analysis of chromosome 16q shows that grade I and grade III invasive ductal breast cancers follow different genetic pathways. J Pathol. 2002;196(1):32–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buerger H, Otterbach F, Simon R, Poremba C, Diallo R, Decker T, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast-evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J Pathol. 1999;187:396–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Connell P, Pekkel V, Fuqua SA, Osborne CK, Clark GM, Allred DC. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:697–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stratton MR, Collins N, Lakhani SR, Sloane JP. Loss of heterozygosity in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Pathol. 1995;175(2):195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gusterson BA, Machin LG, Gullick WJ, Gibbs NM, Powles TJ, Elliott C, et al. c-erbB-2 expression in benign and malignant breast disease. Br J Cancer. 1988;58(4):453–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lu YJ, Osin P, Lakhani SR, Di Palma S, Gusterson BA, Shipley JM. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia and potential roles for gains and losses of genetic material in breast neoplasia. Cancer Res. 1998;58:4721–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berx G, Van Roy F. The E-cadherin/catenin complex: an important gatekeeper in breast cancer tumorigenesis and malignant progression. Breast Cancer Res. 2001;3(5):289–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    Choi BB, Kim SH, Park CS, Cha ES, Lee AW. Radiologic findings of lobular carcinoma in situ: mammography and ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011;39(2):59–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee MH, Ko EY, Han BK, Shin JH, Ko ES, Hahn SY. Sonographic findings of pure ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Ultrasound. 2013;41(8):465–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics. 2006;26(6):1719–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y, Ren H. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and mammography for breast cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. 2017;13(5):862–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: breast cancer, version 1.2017. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(4):433–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Łukasiewicz E, Ziemiecka A, Jakubowski W, Vojinovic J, Bogucevska M, Dobruch-Sobczak K. Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy - which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review. J Ultrason. 2017;17(71):267–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuenen-Boumeester V, Timmermans AM, De Bruijn EM, Henzen-Logmans SC. Immunocytochemical detection of prognostic markers in breast cancer; technical considerations. Cytopathology. 1999;10(5):308–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Solomides CC, Zimmerman R, Bibbo M. Semiquantitative assessment of c-erbB-2 (HER-2) status in cytology specimens and tissue sections from breast carcinoma. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1999;21(2):121–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Denley H, Pinder SE, Elston CW, Lee AH, Ellis IO. Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(1):20–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoda SA, Rosen PP. Practical considerations in the pathologic diagnosis of needle core biopsies of breast. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118(1):101–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Irfan K, Brem RF. Surgical and mammographic follow-up of papillary lesions and atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed with stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast J. 2002;8(4):230–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bonnett M, Wallis T, Rossmann M, Pernick NL, Bouwman D, Carolin KA, et al. Histopathologic analysis of atypical lesions in image-guided core breast biopsies. Mod Pathol. 2003;16(2):154–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Domchek SM. The utility of ductal lavage in breast cancer detection and risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res. 2002;4(2):51–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zaha DC. Significance of immunohistochemistry in breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(3):382–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cutuli B, De Lafontan B, Kirova Y, Auvray H, Tallet A, Avigdor S, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) of the breast: is long-term outcome similar to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? Analysis of 200 cases. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gilleard O, Goodman A, Cooper M, Davies M, Dunn J. The significance of the Van Nuys prognostic index in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ. World J Surg Oncol. 2008;6:61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Kell MR. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1615–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van Roozendaal LM, Goorts B, Klinkert M, Keymeulen KBMI, De Vries B, Strobbe LJA, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted in DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(3):517–25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Costantino J, Poller W, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(2):441–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Forsyth S, Bundred NJ, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(1):21–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Mamounas E, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353(9169):1993–2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chlebowski RT, Col N, Winer EP, Collyar DE, Cummings SR, Vogel VG 3rd, American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Technology Assessment Working Group, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(15):3328–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    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
  51. 51.
    Chuba PJ, Hamre MR, Yap J, Severson RK, Lucas D, Shamsa F, et al. Bilateral risk for subsequent breast cancer after lobular carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results data. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(24):5534–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sumit Goyal
    • 1
  • Niti Raizada
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical oncologyRajiv Gandhi Cancer institute and Research CentreNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Medical Oncology and Hemato-OncologyHealth Care Global EnterprisesBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations