Current issues in diagnostic breast pathology

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 65, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 771-785

  Walker, Rosemary A ^a   Hanby, Andy ^b   Pinder, Sarah E ^c   Thomas, Jeremy ^d   Ellis, Ian O ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOKERATIN; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; TAMOXIFEN;

BREAST; BREAST BIOPSY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; COLUMNAR EPITHELIUM; CYTOPLASM; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EXCISION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HYPERPLASIA; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LACTATION; LOBULAR CARCINOMA IN SITU; LUNG CARCINOMA; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY; MICROMETASTASIS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW;

BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; GENETIC MARKERS; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84866125464     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: 14724146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200733     Document Type: Review

References (171)

1. 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;22:1521-7.
2. Ishihara A, Kobayashi TK. Infarcted intraductal papilloma of the breast: cytologic features with stage of infarction. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:373-6.
3. Cameselle-Teijeiro J, Abdulkader I, Barreiro-Morandeira F, et al. Breast tumor resembling the tall cell variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma: a case report. Int J Surg Pathol 2006;14:79-84.
4. Tremblay G, Deschenes J, Alpert L, et al. Overexpression of estrogen receptors in columnar cell change and in unfolding breast lobules. Breast J 2005;11:326-32.
5. Vincent-Salomon A. [Columnar lesions: a frequent diagnosis in breast pathology!] (In French). Ann Pathol 2003;23:593-6.
6. Schnitt SJ, Vincent-Salomon A. Columnar cell lesions of the breast. Adv Anat Pathol 2003;10:113-24.
7. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Tract. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003.
8. Page D, Anderson T. Diagnostic Histopathology of the Breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987.
9. Rosen PP. Columnar cell hyperplasia is associated with lobular carcinoma in situ and tubular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1999;23:1561.
10. Rosen PP. Rosen's Breast Pathology. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.
11. Foote FW, Stewart FW. Comparative studies of cancerous versus noncancerous breast I. Basic morphologic characteristics. Ann Surg 1945;121:6-53.
12. Goldstein NS, O'Malley BA. 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;107:561-6.
13. Sasse F. Über Cysten und cystiche Tumoren der Mamma. Arch Klin Chir 1897;54:1-54.
14. Schimmelbusch G. Das Cystadenom der Mamma. Arch Klin Chir 1892;44:117-34.
15. Oyama T, Maluf H, Koerner F. Atypical cystic lobules: an early stage in the formation of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Virchows Arch 1999;435:413-21.
16. Bonser G, Dossett JA, Jull JW. Human and Experimental Breast Cancer. London: Pitman Medical, 1961.
17. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. Atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible cancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 1975;55:231-73.
18. 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.
19. Moinfar F, Man YG, Bratthauer GL, et al. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia- at type ("clinging ductal carcinoma in situ"): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer 2000;88:2072-81.
20. Allred DC, Mohsin SK. Biological features of premalignant disease in the human breast. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2000;5:351-64.
21. Viale G. Histopathology of primary breast cancer 2005. Breast 2005;14:487-92.
22. Brogi E, Oyama T, Koerner FC. Atypical cystic lobules in patients with lobular neoplasia. Int J Surg Pathol 2001;9:201-6.
23. 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;29:105-8.
24. Bratthauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Assessment of lesions coexisting with various grades of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast. Virchows Arch 2004;444:340-4.
25. The Mammary Gland: Development, Regulation, and Function. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1987.
26. Van Poznak C, Cross SS, Saggese M, et al. Expression of osteoprotegerin (OPG), TNF related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL), and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL) in human breast tumours. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:56-63.
27. Otterbach F, Bankfalvi A, Bergner S, et al. Cytokeratin 5/6 immunohistochemistry assists the differential diagnosis of atypical proliferations of the breast. Histopathology 2000;37:232-40.
28. Dabbs DJ, Carter G, Fudge M, et al. Molecular alterations in columnar cell lesions of the breast. Mod Pathol 2006;19:344-9.
29. Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11:223-35.
30. 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;29:734-46.
31. Tan PH, Ho BC, Selvarajan S, et al. Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility? J Clin Pathol 2005;58:705-9.
32. O'Malley FP, Mohsin SK, Badve S, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of at epithelial atypia of the breast. Mod Pathol 2006;19:172-9.
33. Foote FW Jr, Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ. A rare form of mammary cancer. Am J Pathol 1941;17:491-6.
34. Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R, et al. Lobular neoplasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ) of the breast. Cancer 1978;42:737-69.
35. Wheeler JE, Enterline HT, Roseman JM, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Long-term followup. Cancer 1974;34:554-63.
36. Andersen JA. Lobular carcinoma in situ. A long-term follow-up in 52 cases. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand A 1974;82:519-33.
37. Bratthauer GL, Tavassoli FA. Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia: previously unexplored aspects assessed in 775 cases and their clinical implications. Virchows Arch 2002;440:134-8.
38. Lobular neoplasia. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, eds. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003:60-2.
39. Eusebi V, Magalhaes F, Azzopardi JG. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: an aggressive tumor showing apocrine differentiation. Hum Pathol 1992;23:655-62.
40. Sneige N, Want J, Baker BA, et al. 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.
41. Reis-Filho JS, Simpson PT, Jones C, et al. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: role of comprehensive molecular pathology in characterization of an entity. J Pathol 2005;207:1-13.
42. Fadare O, Dadmanesh F, Alvarado-Cabrero I, et al. Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia [lobular carcinoma in situ] with comedo-type necrosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:1445-53.
43. Koerner F, Maluf H. Uncommon morphologic patterns of lobular neoplasia. Ann Diagn Pathol 1999;3:249-59.
44. Page DL, Kidd TE Jr, Dupont WD, et al. Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol 1991;22:1232-9.
45. De Leuuw WJ, Berx G, Vos CB, et al. Simultaneous loss of E-cadherin and catenins in invasive lobular breast cancer and lobular carcinoma in situ. J Pathol 1997;183:404-11.
46. Vos CB, Cleton-Jansen AM, Berx G, et al. E-cadherin inactivation in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: an early event in tumorigenesis. Br J Cancer 1997;76:1131-3.
47. Simpson PT, Gale T, Fulford LG, et al. The diagnosis and management of preinvasive breast disease: pathology of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:258-62.
48. Maluf HM. Differential diagnosis of solid carcinoma in situ. Semin Diagn Pathol 2001;25:237-44.
49. Maluf HM, Swanson PE, Koerner FC. Solid low-grade in situ carcinoma of the breast: role of associated lesions and E-cadherin in differential diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:237-44.
50. Jacobs TW, Pliss N, Kouria G, et al. Carcinomas in situ of the breast with indeterminable features: role of E-cadherin staining in categorization. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:229-36.
51. Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R, Chivukula M. Lobular versus ductal breast neoplasms. The diagnostic utility of p120 catenin. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:427-37.
52. Bratthauer GL, Moinfar F, Stamatakos MD, et al. Combined E-cadherin and high molecular weight cytokeratin immuno-profile differentiates lobular, ductal and hybrid mammary intraepithelial neoplasias. Hum Pathol 2002;33:620-7.
53. Bratthauer GL, Miettinen M, Tavassoli FA. Cytokeratin immunoreactivity in lobular intraepithelial neoplasia. J Histochem Cytochem 2003;51:1527-31.
54. Droufakou S, Deshmane V, Roylance R, et al. Multiple ways of silencing E-cadherin gene expression in lobular carcinoma of the breast. Int J Cancer 2001;92:404-8.
55. Sarrio D, Moreno-Bueno G, Hardisson D, et al. Epigenetic and genetic alterations of APC and CDH1 genes in lobular breast cancer: relationships with abnormal E-cadherin and catenin expression and microsatellite instability. Int J Cancer 2003;106:208-15.
56. Mastracci TL, Tjan S, Bane AL, et al. E-cadherin alterations in atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Mod Pathol 2005;18:741-51.
57. Lu YJ, Osin P, Lakhani S, et al. 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.
58. Shelley Hwang E, Nyante SJ, Yi Chen Y, et al. Clonality of lobular carcinoma in situ and synchronous invasive lobular carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100:2562-72.
59. Morandi L, Marucci G, Foschini MP, et al. Genetic similarities and differences between lobular in situ neoplasia (LN) and invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Virchows Arch 2006;449:14-23.
60. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, et al. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long term follow-up study. Cancer 1985;55:2698-708.
61. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW. Ductal involvement by cells of atypical lobular hyperplasia in the breast: a long term follow-up study of cancer risk. Hum Pathol 1988;19:201-7.
62. Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WA, et al. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2003;361:125-9.
63. Ottesen GL, Graversen HP, Blichert-Toft M, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the female breast. Short term results of a prospective nationwide study. The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17:14-21.
64. Chuba PJ, Hamre MR, Yap J, 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;23:5534-41.
65. Rosen PP, Kosloff C, Lieberman PH, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: detailed analysis of 99 patients with average follow-up of 24 years. Am J Surg Pathol 1978;2:225-51.
66. Collins LC, Baer JH, Tamimi RM, et al. Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia. Cancer 2007;109:180-7.
67. Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS, et al. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001. Cancer 2006;106:2104-12.
68. Abner AL, Connolly JL, Recht A, et al. The relation between the presence and extent of lobular carcinoma in situ and the risk of local recurrence for patients with infiltrating carcinoma of the breast treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 2000;88:1072-7.
69. Fisher ER, Land SR, Fisher B, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. Twelve-year observations concerning lobular carcinoma in situ. Cancer 2004;100:238-44.
70. Ben-David MA, Kleer CG, Paramagui C, et al. Is lobular carcinoma in situ as a component of breast carcinoma a risk factor for local failure after breast-conserving therapy? Results of a matched pair analysis. Cancer 2006;106:28-34.
71. Adepoju LJ, Symmans WF, Babiera GV, et al. Impact of concurrent proliferative high-risk lesions on the risk of ipsilateral breast carcinoma recurrence and contralateral breast carcinoma development in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 2006;106:42-50.
72. Pinder SE, Provenzano E, Reis-Filho JS. Lobular in situ hyperplasia and columnar cell lesions: diagnosis in breast core biopsies and implications for management. Pathology 2007;39:208-16.
73. Reis-Filho JS, Pinder SE. Non-operative breast pathology: lobular neoplasia. J Clin Pathol 2007;60:1321-7.
74. Lakhani SR, Audretsch W, Cleton-Jensen AM, et al. The management of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Is LCIS the same as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? Eur J Cancer 2006;42:2205-11.
75. Menon S, Porter GJ, Evans AJ, et al. The significance of lobular neoplasia on needle core biopsy of the breast. Virchows Arch 2008;452:473-9.
76. O'Driscoll D, Britton P, Bobrow L, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core biopsy e what is the clinical significance? Clin Radiol 2001;56:216-20.
77. Cangiarella J, Guth A, Axelrod D, 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.
78. Elsheikh TM, Silverman JF. Follow-up surgical excision is indicated when breast core needle biopsies show atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:534-43.
79. Mahoney MC, Robinson-Smith TM, Shaughnessy EA. Lobular neoplasia at 11- gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy: correlation with surgical excision biopsy and mammographic follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:949-54.
80. Houssami N, Caitto S, Bilous M, et al. Borderline breast core needle histology: predictive values for malignancy in lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3). Br J Cancer 2007;96:1253-7.
81. Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A, et al. Lobular neoplasia: core needle breast biopsy underestimation of malignancy in relation to radiologic and pathologic features. Breast 2008;17:623-30.
82. Hwang H, Barke LD, Mendelson EB, et al. Atypical lobular hyperplasia and classic lobular carcinoma in situ in core biopsy specimens; routine excision is not necessary. Mod Pathol 2008;21:1208-16.
83. Chivukula M, Haynick DM, Brufsky A, et al. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (PLCIS) on breast core needle biopsies: clinical significance and immunoprofile. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:1721-6.
84. Pickren JW. Significance of occult metastases. A study of breast cancer. Cancer 1961;14:1266-71.
85. Weaver DL. Sentinel lymph nodes and breast carcinoma. Which micrometastases are significant? Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:842-5.
86. Huvos AG, Hutter R, Berg JW. Significance of axillary macrometastases and micrometastases in mammary carcinoma. Ann Surg 1971;173:44-6.
87. Fisher ER, Palekar R, Rockette H, et al. Pathological findings for the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (Protocol # 4). Significance of axillary nodal micro- and macrometastases. Cancer 1978;42:3032-8.
88. Rosen PP, Saigo P, Braun DW Jr, et al. Occult axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: prognostic significance of tumor size. Ann Surg 1981;194:585-91.
89. Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 5th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997.
90. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th edn. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
91. Sobin LH, Wittekind C, eds. UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 6th edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2002.
92. Singletary SE, Greene FL, Sobin LH. Classification of isolated tumor cells: clarification of the 6th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging manual. Cancer 2003;98:2740-1.
93. Connolly JL. Changes and problematic areas in interpretation of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edition, for breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:287-91.
94. Cserni G, Bianchi S, Boecker W, et al; for the European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology. Improving the reproducibility of diagnosing micrometastases and isolated tumor cells. Cancer 2005;103:358-67.
95. Cserni G, Sapino A, Decker T. Discriminating between micrometastases and isolated tumor cells in a regional and institutional setting. Breast 2006;15:347-54.
96. Turner RR, Weaver DL, Cserni G, et al. Nodal stage classification for breast carcinoma: improving interobserver reproducibility through standardized histologic criteria and image-based training. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:258-63.
97. Cserni G, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, et al. Variations in sentinel node isolated tumour cells/micrometastasis and non-sentinel node involvement rates according to different interpretations of the TNM definitions. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:2185-91.
98. Lyman GH, Guiliano AE, Somerfield MK, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7703-20.
99. Ellis IO, Pinder SE, Bobrow L, et al. Pathology reporting of Breast Disease. Sheffield, UK: NHS cancer Screening Programmes, 2005.
100. Cserni G. A model for determining the optimum histology of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:467-71.
101. Cserni G, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al; European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology. Pathological work-up of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Review of current data to be considered for the formulation of guidelines. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1654-67.
102. Turner RR, Ollila D, Stern S, et al. Optimal histopathologic examination of the sentinel lymph node for breast carcinoma staging. Am J Surg Pathol 1999;23:263-7.
103. Dowlatshahi K, Fan M, Anderson JM, et al. Occult metastases in sentinel nodes of 200 patients with operable breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2001;8:675-81.
104. Cserni G. Complete sectioning of axillary sentinel nodes in patients with breast cancer. Analysis of two different step sectioning and immunohistochemistry protocols in 246 patients. J Clin Pathol 2002;55:926-31.
105. Klevesath MB, Bobrow LG, Pinder SE, et al. The value of immuno-histochemistry in sentinel lymph node histopathology in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2005;92:2201-5.
106. Roberts CA, Beitsch PD, Litz CE, et al. Interpretative disparity among pathologists in breast cancer sentinel lymph node evaluation. Am J Surg 2003;186:324-9.
107. Moore KH, Thaler HT, Tan LK, et al. Immunohistochemically detected tumor cells in the sentinel lymph nodes of patients with breast carcinoma. Biologic metastasis or procedural artefact? Cancer 2004;100:929-34.
108. Manzotti M, Dell Orto P, Maisonneuve P, et al. Reverse transcriptase - polymerase chain reaction assay for multiple mRNA markers in the detection of breast cancer metastases in sentinel lymph nodes. Int J Cancer 2001;95:307-12.
109. Viale G, Dell'Orto P, Biasi DO, et al. Comparative evaluation of an extensive histopathologic examination and a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay for mammoglobin and cytokeratin 19 on axillary sentinel lymph nodes of breast carcinoma patients. Ann Surg 2008;247:136-42.
110. Martin Martinez MD, Veys I, Majjaj S, et al. Clinical validation of a molecular assay for intra-operative detection of metastases in breast sentinel lymph nodes. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:387-92.
111. Mansel RE, Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, et al. Detection of breast cancer metastasis in sentinel lymph nodes using intra-operative real time GeneSearch™ BLN assay in the operating room: results of the Cardiff study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;115:595-600.
112. Cserni G, Gregori D, Merletti F, et al. Meta-analysis of non-sentinel node metastases associated with micrometastatic sentinel nodes in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2004;91:1245-52.
113. Viale G, Maiorano E, Mazzarol G, et al. Histologic detection and clinical implications of micrometastases in axillary sentinel lymph nodes for patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2001;92:1378-84.
114. den Bakker MA, van Weeszenberg A, de Kanter AY, et al. Non-sentinel lymph node involvement in patients with breast cancer and sentinel node micrometastasis; too early to abandon axillary clearance. J Clin Pathol 2002;55:932-5.
115. Dabbs DJ, Fung D, Landsittel D, et al. Sentinel lymph node micrometastasis as a predictor of axillary tumor burden. Breast J 2004;10:101-5.
116. Carcoforo P, Bergossi L, Basaglia E, et al. Prognostic and therapeutic impact of sentinel node micrometastasis in patients with invasive breast cancer. Tumori 2002;88:54-5.
117. Cserni G, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in staging small (upto 15mm) breast carcinomas. Results from a European multi-institutional study. Pathol Oncol Res 2007;13:5-14.
118. Houvenaeghel G, Nos C, Mignotte H, et al. Micrometastases in sentinel lymph node in a multicentric study: predictive factors of nonsentinel lymph node involvement: Groupe de Chirurgiens de la Federation des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1814-22.
119. Van Rijk MC, Peterse JL, Nieweg OE, et al. Additional axillary metastases and stage migration in breast cancer patients with micrometastases or submicrometastases in sentinel lymph nodes. Cancer 2006;107:467-71.
120. Van Deurzen CH, Van HR, Hobbelink MG, et al. Predictive value of tumor load in breast cancer sentinel lymph nodes for second echelon lymph node metastases. Cell Oncol 2007;29:497-505.
121. Calhoun KE, Hansen NM, Turner RR, et al. Non-sentinel node metastases in breast cancer patients with isolated tumor cells in the sentinel node: implications for completion axillary node dissection. Am J Surg 2005;190:588-91.
122. Millis RR, Springall R, Lee AH, et al. Occult lymph node metastases are of no prognostic significance in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2002;86:396-41.
123. Kuijt GP, Voogd AC, van de Poll-Frause LV, et al. The prognostic significance of axillary lymph node micrometastases in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:500-5.
124. Maibenco DC, Dombi GW, Kau TY, et al. Significance of micrometastases on the survival of women with T1 breast cancer. Cancer 2006;107:1234-9.
125. Chen SL, Hoehne FM, Giuliano AE. The prognostic significance of micrometastases in breast cancer: a SEER population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;15:3378-84.
126. Tan LK, Giri D, Hummer AJ, et al. Occult axillary node metastases in breast cancer are prognostically significant: results in 368 node-negative patients with 20-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1803-9.
127. Kahn HJ, Hanna WM, Chapman JA, et al. Biological significance of occult micrometastases in histologically negative axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients using the recent American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. Breast J 2006;12:294-301.
128. Yaziji H, Gown AM, Sneige N. Detection of stromal invasion in breast cancer: the myoepithelial markers. Adv Anat Pathol 2000;7:100-9.
129. Foschini MP, Scarpellini F, Gown AM, et al. Differential expression of moyepithelial markers in salivary, sweat and mammary glands. Int J Surg Pathol 2000;8:29-37.
130. Lazard D, Sastre X, Frid MG, et al. Expression of smooth muscle specific proteins in myoepithelium and stromal myofibroblasts of normal and malignant human breast tissue. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993;90:9990-1003.
131. Dairkee SH, Blayney C, Smith HS, et al. Monoclonal antibody that defines human myoepithelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1985;82:7409-13.
132. Nagle RB, Bocker W, David JR, et al. Characterization of breast carcinomas by two monoclonal antibodies distinguishing myoepithelial from luminal epithelial cells. J Histochem Cytochem 1986;34:869-81.
133. Otterbach F, Bankfalvi A, Bergher S, et al. Cytokeratin 5/6 immunohistochemistry assists the differential diagnosis of atypical proliferations of the breast. Histopathology 2000;37:232-40.
134. Joshi MG, Lee AK, Pedersen CA, et al. The role of immunocytochemical markers in the differential diagnosis of proliferative and neoplastic lesions of the breast. Mod Pathol 1996;9:57-62.
135. Dwarakanath S, Lee AK, Delellis RA, et al. S100 protein positivity in breast carcinomas: a potential pitfall in diagnostic immunohistochemistry. Hum Pathol 1987;18:1144-8.
136. Gusterson BA, Monaghan P, Manhendran R, et al. Identification of myoepithelial cells in human and rat breasts by anti-common acute lymphoblastic leukaemia antigen antibody A12. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;77:343-9.
137. Moritani S, Kushima R, Sugihara H, et al. Availability of CD10 immunohistochemistry as a marker of breast myoepithelial cells on paraffin sections. Mod Pathol 2002;15:397-405.
138. Kovacs A, Walker RA. P-cadherin as a marker in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. J Clin Pathol 2003;546:139-41.
139. Barbareschi M, Pecciarini L, Cangi MG, et al. p63, a p53 homologue, is a selective nuclear marker of myoepithelial cells of the human breast. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:1056-60.
140. Werling RW, Hwang H, Yaziji H, et al. Immunohistochemical distinction of invasive from non-invasive breast lesions. A comparative study of p63 versus calponin and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:82-90.
141. Simpson PT, Gale T, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Distribution and significance of 14-3-3 sigma, a novel moyepithelial marker, in normal, benign and malignant tissue. J Pathol 2004;202:274-85.
142. Reis-Filho JS, Milanezi F, Silva P, et al. Maspin expression in myoepithelial tumours of the breast. Pathol Res Pract 2002;197:817-21.
143. Douglas-Jones A, Shah V, Morgan J, et al. Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of core biopsies of papillary breast lesions is reduced by the use of immunohistochemistry for CK5/6, calponin and p63. Histopathology 2005;47:202-8.
144. Collins LC, Carlo VP, Hwang H, et al. Intracystic papillary carcinomas of the breast: a re-evaluation using a panel of myoepithelial cell markers. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:1002-7.
145. Tse GM, Tan PH, Lui PC, et al. The role of immunohistochemistry for smooth muscle actin, p63, CD10 and CK14 in the differential diagnosis of papillary lesions of the breast. J Clin Pathol 2007;60:315-20.
146. Tan PH, Aw MY, Yip G, et al. Cytokeratins in papillary lesions of the breast. Is there a role in distinguishing intraductal papilloma from papillary ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:625-32.
147. Rabban JT, Koerner FC, Lerwill MF. Solid papillary ductal carcinoma in situ versus usual ductal hyperplasia in the breast: a potentially difficult distinction resolved by cytokeratin 5/6. Hum Pathol 2006;37:787-93.
148. Ribeiro-Silva A, Zamzelli Ramalho LN, Garcia SB, et al. Is p63 reliable in detecting microinvasion in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Pathol Oncol Res 2003;9:20-3.
149. Kalof AN, Tam D, Beatty B, et al. Immunostaining patterns of myoepithelial cells in breast lesions: a comparison of CD10 and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:625-9.
150. Hungermann D, Buerger H, Oehlschregel C, et al. Adenomyoepithelial tumours and myoepithelial carcinomas of the breast - a spectrum of monophasic and biphasic tumours dominated by immature myoepithelial cells. BMC Cancer 2005;5:92-102.
151. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS. Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene 2006;25:5846-53.
152. Banerjee S, Reis-Filho JS, Ashley S, et al. Basal-like breast carcinomas: clinical outcome and response to chemotherapy. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:729-35.
153. Neilsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:5367-74.
154. Fulford LG, Easton DP, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Specific morphological features predictive for the basal phenotype in grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Histopathology 2006;49:22-34.
155. Arnes JB, Brunet JS, Stefannson I, et al. Placental cadherin and the basal epithelial phenotype of BRCA-1 related breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:4003-11.
156. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, et al. Breast carcinoma with basal differentiation: a proposal for pathology definition based on basal cytokeratin expression. Histopathology 2007;50:434-8.
157. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999;353:1993-2000.
158. Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E, et al. Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. Semin Oncol 2001;28:400-18.
159. Allred DC, Bryant J, Land S, et al. Estrogen receptor expression as a predictive marker of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in the treatment of DCIS: findings from the NSABP Protocol B-24 (abstract 30). Br Cancer Res Tr 2002;76:S36.
160. Houghton J, George WD, Cusick J, et al. Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia and New Zealand: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:95-192.
161. Fisher B, Constantino JP, Wickerham L, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1371-88.
162. Anon. Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease. NHS Breast Screening Programme Publication No 58. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes and the Royal College of Pathologists. 2005:87.
163. Livasy CA, Perou CM, Karaca G, et al. Identification of a basal-like subtype of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 2007;38:197-204.
164. Leong AS, Sormunen RT, Vinyuvat S, et al. Biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ and concurrent infiltrating carcinoma. A comparison of eight contemporary grading systems. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:709-18.
165. McCarty KS Jr, Szabo E, Flowers JL, et al. Use of a monoclonal anti-estrogen receptor antibody in the immunohistochemical evaluation of human tumors. Cancer Res 1986;46(8 Suppl):4244s-8s.
166. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, et al. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1474-81.
167. Thomas JS, Hanby AM, Pinder SE, et al; on behalf of the Sloane Project Steering Group. Implications of inconsistent measurement of ER status in non-invasive breast cancer: a study of 1684 cases from the Sloane Project. Breast J 2008;14:31-6.
168. Baqai T, Sousha S. Oestrogen receptor negativity as a marker for high grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Histopathology 2003;42:440-7.
169. Otteson GL, Christesen IJ, Larsen JK, et al. Carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation of hstopathology to immunohstochemical markers and DNA ploidy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;60:219-26.
170. 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;19:617-21.
171. Dabbs DJ, Chivukula M, Carter G, et al. Basal phenotype of ductal carcinoma in situ: recognition and immunohistologic profile. Mod Pathol 2006;19:1506-11.