The sick lobe concept

Breast Cancer: A New Era in Management

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 79-94

  Tot, Tibor ^a  

^a FALUN HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937254102     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8063-1_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (63)

1. Boyle P, Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe 2004. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(3):481–8.
2. Easton DF, Steele L, Fields P, et al. Cancer risk in two large breast cancer families linked to BRCA2 on chromosome 13q12-13. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;61:120–8.
3. Ford D, Easton DF, Bishop DT, et al. Risk of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast cancer linkage consortium. Lancet. 1994;343:692–5.
4. Clarke CA, Glaser SL, West DW, et al. Breast cancer incidence and mortality trends in an affl uent population: Marine county, California, USA, 1990-1996. Breast Cancer Res. 2002;4:R13.
5. Tot T. DCIS, cytokeratins, and the theory of the sick lobe. Virchows Arch. 2005;447:1–8.
6. Going JJ, Moffat DF. Escaping from fl atland: clinical and biological aspects of human mammary duct anatomy in three dimensions. J Pathol. 2004;203:538–44.
7. Going JJ, Mohun TJ. Human breast duct anatomy, the ‘sick lobe’ hypothesis and intraductal approaches to breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;97:285–91.
8. Going JJ. Lobar anatomy of the human breast and its importance for breast cancer. In: Tot T, editor. Breast cancer—a lobar disease. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 19–37.
9. Amy D. Lobar ultrasound of the breast. In: Tot T, editor. Breast cancer—a lobar disease. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 153–62.
10. Gudjonsson T, Magnusson MK. Stem cell biology and the pathways of carcinogenesis. APMIS. 2005;113:922–9.
11. Fridriksdottir AJR, Petersen OW, Ronnow-Jessen L. Mammary gland stem cells: current status and future challenges. Int J Dev Biol. 2011;55:719–29.
12. Tot T. The theory of the sick lobe. In: Tot T, editor. Breast cancer—a lobar disease. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 1–17.
13. Villadsen R. In search of stem cell hierarchy in the human breast and its relevance in breast cancer evolution. APMIS. 2005;113:903–21.
14. Villadsen R, Fridriksdottir AJ, Ronnov-Jenssen L, et al. Evidence for stem cell hierarchy in the adult human breast. J Cell Biol. 2007;177:87–101.
15. Smith GH, Boulanger CA. Epithelial stem cells transplantation and self renewal analysis. Cell Prolif. 2003;36 Suppl 1:3–15.
16. Al Hajj M, Wicha MS, Benito-Hernandez A, et al. Prospective identifi cation of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:3983–8.
17. Reja T, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF, Weissmann IL. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature. 2001;414:105–11.
18. Agelopoulos K, Buerger H, Brandt B. Allelic imbalance of the egfr gene as key event in breast cancer progression—the concept of committed progenitor cells. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2008;8:431–45.
19. Tot T. The theory of the sick breast lobe and the possible consequences. Int J Surg Pathol. 2007;15:369–75.
20. Tot T. The origins of early breast carcinoma. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010;27:62–8.
21. Tot T, editor. Breast cancer—a lobar disease. New York: Springer; 2011.
22. Virchow R. Cellular-Pathologie. Archiv fur Pathologische Anatomie und Phisiologie fur Klinische Medizin. 1855;8:3–39.
23. Gibbs NM. Large paraffi n sections and chemical clearance of axillary tissues as a routine procedure in the pathological examination of the breast. Histopathology. 1982;6(5):647–60.
24. Mai KT, Yazdi HM, Burns BF, Perkins DG. Pattern of distribution of intraductal and infi ltrating ductal carcinoma: three-dimensional study using serial coronal giant sections of the breast. Hum Pathol. 2000;31:464–74.
25. Xue F, Michels KB. Intrauterine factors and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:1088–100.
26. Yan PS, Venkataramu C, Ibrahim A, et al. Mapping geographic zones of cancer risk with epigenetic biomarkers in normal breast tissue. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:6626–36.
27. Lakhani SR, Chaggar R, Davies S, et al. Genetic alterations in “normal” luminal and myoepithelial cells of the breast. J Pathol. 1999;189:496–503.
28. Barchie MF, Clive KS, Tyler JA, et al. Standardized pretreatment breast MRI-accuracy and infl uence on mastectomy decisions. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104(7):741–5.
29. Teboul M, Halliwell M. Atlas of ultrasound and ductal echography of the breast: the introduction of anatomic intelligence into breast imaging. London: Wiley-Blackwell; 1995. p. 380.
30. Tabár L, Chen HT, Yen MFA, et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14 mm invasive carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101:1745–59.
31. Andersen JA, Blichert-Toft M, Dyreborg U. In situ carcinomas of the breast. Types, growth pattern, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1987;13:105–11.
32. Tot T. The subgross morphology of normal and pathologically altered breast tissue. In: Suri J, Rangayyan RM, editors. Recent advances in breast imaging, mammography and computer— aided diagnosis of breast cancer. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press; 2006. p. 1–49.
33. Tot T. The clinical relevance of the distribution of the lesions in 500 consecutive breast cancer cases documented in large-format histological sections. Cancer. 2007;110:2551–60.
34. Tot T. General morphology of benign and malignant breast lesions: old parameters in new perspectives. In: Suri J, Rangayyan RM, Laxminarayan S, editors. Emerging technologies in breast imaging and mammography. Valencia, CA: American Scientific Publisher; 2008. p. 1–12.
35. de Neergaard M, Kim J, Villadsen R, et al. Epithelial-stromal interaction 1 (EPSTI1) substitutes for peritumoral fi broblasts in the tumor microenvironment. Am J Pathol. 2010;176(3): 1229–40.
36. Asioli S, Eusebi V, Gaetano L, et al. The pre-lymphatic pathway, the roots of the lymphatic system in the breast tissue: a 3D study. Virchows Arch. 2008;453:401–6.
37. Tot T. The diffuse type of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology and prognosis. Virchows Arch. 2003;443:718–24.
38. Tot T, Kahán Z. A new approach to early breast cancer. In: Kahán Z, Tot T, editors. Breast cancer, a heterogeneous disease entity. The very early stages. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 1–22.
39. Clarke GM, Eidt S, Sun L, et al. Whole-specimen histopathology: a method to produce whole mount breast serial sections for 3-D digital histopathology imaging. Histopathology. 2007;50:232–42.
40. Egan RL. Multicentric breast carcinoma: clinical-radiographic-pathologic whole organ studies and 10-year survival. Cancer. 1982;49:1123–30.
41. Gallager HS, Martin JE. The study of mammary carcinoma by mammography and whole organ sectioning. Early observations. Cancer. 1969;23:855–73.
42. Holland R, Veling SH, Mravunac M, et al. Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1-2 breast carcinomas. Implications for clinical trials of breast conserving surgery. Cancer. 1985;56:979–90.
43. Foschini MP, Tot T, Eusebi V. Large section (macrosection) histologic slides. In: Silverstein MJ, editor. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2002. p. 249–54.
44. Foschini MP, Flamminio F, Miglio R, et al. The impact of large sections on the study of in situ and invasive duct carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1736–43.
45. Jackson PA, Merchant W, McCormick CJ, Cook MG. A comparison of large block macrosectioning and conventional techniques in breast pathology. Virchows Arch. 1994;425:243–8.
46. Mechine-Neuville MP, Chenard B, Gairard C, et al. Large sections in routine breast pathology. A technique adapted to conservative surgery. Ann Pathol. 2000;20:275–9.
47. Tot T. The metastastic capacity of multifocal breast carcinomas: extensive tumors versus tumors of limited extent. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:199–205.
48. Tot T, Gy P, Hofmeyer S, et al. The distribution of lesions in 1-14-mm invasive breast carcinomas and its relation to metastatic potential. Virchows Arch. 2009;455:109–15.
49. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1707–16.
50. Simone NL, Dan T, Shih J, et al. Twenty-fi ve year results of the National Cancer Institute randomized breast conservation trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132(1):197–203.
51. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Choosing treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: fi ne tuning the University of Southern California/Van Nuys Prognostic Index. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;41:193–6.
52. Tot T. Subgross morphology, the sick lobe hypothesis, and the success of breast conservation. Int J Breast Cancer. 2011;2011:634021. doi: 10.4061/2011/634021. Article ID 634021, 8 p.
53. Lindquist D, Hellberg D, Tot T. Disease extent ≥4cm is a prognostic marker of local recurrence in T1-2 breast cancer. Patholog Res Int. 2011;2011:860584.
54. Faverly DRG, Hendricks JHCL, Holland R. Breast carcinoma of limited extent. Frequency, radiologic—pathologic characteristics, and surgical margin requirements. Cancer. 2001;91: 647–59.
55. Holland R, Hendricks JH, Vebeek AL, et al. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlation of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 1990;335:519–22.
56. Dooley WC. Routine operative breast endoscopy during lumpectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:38–42.
57. Tot T, Gere M, Gy P, et al. Breast cancer multifocality, disease extent, and survival. Hum Pathol. 2011;42(11):1761–9.
58. Andea AA, Wallis T, Newman LA, et al. Pathologic analysis of tumor size and lymph node status in multifocal/multicentric breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:1383.1390.
59. Coombs NJ, Boyages J. Multifocal and multicentric breast cancer: does each focus matter? J Clin Oncol. 2005;34:7497–502.
60. Pedersen L, Gunnarsdottir KA, Rasmussen BB, et al. The prognostic infl uence of multifocality in breast cancer patients. Breast. 2004;13:188–93.
61. Boyages J, Jajashinghe UW, Coombs N. Multifocal breast cancer and survival: each focus does matter particularly for larger tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1990–6.
62. Weissenbacher TM, Zschage M, Janni W, et al. Multicentric and multifocal versus unifocal breast cancer: is the tumor-node-metastasis classification justifi ed? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;22:27–34.
63. Chung AP, Huynh K, Kidner T, et al. Comparison of outcomes of breast conserving therapy in multifocal and unifocal invasive breast cancer. Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:137–47.