Digital mammography: More microcalcifications, more columnar cell lesions without atypia

Modern Pathology

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1191-1197

  Verschuur Maes, Anoek H J ^a   Van Gils, Carla H ^a   Van Den Bosch, Maurice A A J ^a   De Bruin, Peter C ^b   Van Diest, Paul J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ST ANTONIUS HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast; columnar cell lesions; core needle biopsy; digital mammography; flat epithelial atypia

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 80052395527     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.81     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. WHO Classification Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. IARC: Lyon, 2003.
2. 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. (Pubitemid 28550647)
3. McLaren BK, Gobbi H, Schuyler PA, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor in enlarged lobular units with columnar alteration in benign breast biopsies: a nested case-control study. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:105-108. (Pubitemid 40023957)
4. Oyama T, Maluf H, Koerner F, et al. Atypical cystic lobules: an early stage in the formation of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Virchows Arch 1999;435: 413-421. (Pubitemid 29472200)
5. Tavassoli FA. Ductal carcinoma in situ. Introduction of the concept of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 1998;11:140-154. (Pubitemid 28144150)
6. Kusama R, Fujimori M, Matsuyama I, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of atypical cystic duct (ACD) of the breast: assessment of ACD as a precancerous lesion. Pathol Int 2000;50:793-800.
7. Azzopardi JG, Ahmed A, Millis RR. Problems in breast pathology. Major Probl Pathol 1979;11:i-466.
8. Schnitt SJ, Vincent-Salomon A. Columnar cell lesions of the breast. Adv Anat Pathol 2003;10:113-124.
9. Aulmann S, Elsawaf Z, Penzel R, et al. Invasive tubular carcinoma of the breast frequently is clonally related to flat epithelial atypia and low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg Pathol 2009;33:1646-1653.
10. Dabbs DJ, Carter G, Fudge M, et al. Molecular alterations in columnar cell lesions of the breast. Mod Pathol 2006;19:344-349. (Pubitemid 43276987)
11. Goldstein NS, O'Malley BA, Goldstein NS, et al. Cancerization of small ectatic 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. (Pubitemid 27183989)
12. Page DL. Cancer risk assessment in benign breast biopsies. Hum Pathol 1986;17:871-874. (Pubitemid 17184311)
13. Page DL, Simpson JF. Pathology of preinvasive and excellent-prognosis breast cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 1996;8:462-467. (Pubitemid 26405847)
14. Rosen PP. Columnar cell hyperplasia is associated with lobular carcinoma in situ and tubular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1999;23:1561.
15. 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. (Pubitemid 40734423)
16. Feeley L, Quinn CM. Columnar cell lesions of the breast. Histopathology 2008;52:11-19. (Pubitemid 350265180)
17. Lee S, Medina D, Tsimelzon A, et al. Alterations of gene expression in the development of early hyperplastic precursors of breast cancer. Am J Pathol 2007;171:252-262. (Pubitemid 47339242)
18. 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. (Pubitemid 30233209)
19. Sinn HP. Breast cancer precursors: lessons learned from molecular genetics. J Mol Med 2009;87: 113-115.
20. Jara-Lazaro AR, Tse GM, Tan PH. Columnar cell lesions of the breast: an update and significance on core biopsy. Pathology (Phila) 2009;41:18-27.
21. Kim MJ, Kim EK, Oh KK, et al. Columnar cell lesions of the breast: mammographic and US features. Eur J Radiol 2006;60:264-269. (Pubitemid 44635045)
22. Schnitt SJ. Columnar cell lesions of the breast: pathological features and clinical significance. Curr Diagn Pathol 2004;10:193-203. (Pubitemid 38859633)
23. del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:860-866. (Pubitemid 47479768)
24. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2679-2683. (Pubitemid 36940378)
25. Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 2005;78:312-315. (Pubitemid 40520737)
26. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a populationbased screening program. Radiology 2009;253: 353-358.
27. Berman CG. Recent advances in breast-specific imaging. Cancer Control 2007;14:338-349. (Pubitemid 350272895)
28. D'Orsi CJ, Newell MS. Digital mammography: clinical implementation and clinical trials. Semin Roentgenol 2007;42:236-242. (Pubitemid 47494505)
29. Heddson B, Ronnow K, Olsson M, et al. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007;64:419-425. (Pubitemid 350116481)
30. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001;218:873-880. (Pubitemid 32172576)
31. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353: 1773-1783. (Pubitemid 41549889)
32. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007;244:708-717. (Pubitemid 47292081)
33. Becker L, Taves D, McCurdy L, et al. Stereotactic core biopsy of breast microcalcifications: comparison of film versus digital mammography, both using an add-on unit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177: 1451-1457. (Pubitemid 33081499)
34. van Diest PJ. No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for scientific purposes. BMJ 2002;325:648-651.
35. Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:702-706. (Pubitemid 38405384)
36. Pun E, Lau WF, Cassumbhoy R, et al. Clinical experience of the first digital mammographic unit in Australia in its first year of use. Med J Aust 2007;187:576-579.
37. Kunju LP, Kleer CG. Significance of flat epithelial atypia on mammotome core needle biopsy: should it be excised? Human Pathol 2007;38:35-41. (Pubitemid 44880218)
38. Senetta R, Campanino PP, Mariscotti G, et al. Columnar cell lesions associated with breast calcifications on vacuum-assisted core biopsies: clinical, radiographic, and histological correlations. Mod Pathol 2009;22: 762-769.
39. Jacobs TW, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies: to excise or not to excise? Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26: 1095-1110. (Pubitemid 34969180)
40. Chivukula M, Bhargava R, Tseng G, et al. Clinicopathologic implications of 'flat epithelial atypia' in core needle biopsy specimens of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:802-808.
41. David N, Labbe-Devilliers C, Moreau D, et al. Diagnosis of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) after stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) of the breast: what is the best management: systematic surgery for all or follow-up? J Radiol 2006;87:1671-1677. (Pubitemid 44735502)
42. Guerra-Wallace MM, Christensen WN, White Jr RL. A retrospective study of columnar alteration with prominent apical snouts and secretions and the association with cancer. Am J Surg 2004;188: 395-398. (Pubitemid 39330543)
43. Noske A, Pahl S, Fallenberg E, et al. Flat epithelial atypia is a common subtype of B3 breast lesions and associated with noninvasive cancer but not with invasive cancer in final excision histology. Hum Pathol 2009;41:522-527.
44. Tomasino RM, Morello V, Gullo A, et al. Assessment of 'grading' with Ki-67 and c-kit immunohistochemical expressions may be a helpful tool in management of patients with flat epithelial atypia (FEA) and columnar cell lesions (CCLs) on core breast biopsy. J Cell Physiol 2009;221:343-349.