An Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk in Women With

Single, Multiple, and Atypical PapillomaJason T. Lewis, MD,* Lynn C. Hartmann, MD,w Robert A. Vierkant, MAS,z Shaun D. Malone

y, BA,z V. Shane Pankratz, PhD,z Teresa M. Allers,w Marlene H. Frost, PhD,wand Daniel W. Visscher, MD

Am J Surg Pathol Volume 30, Number 6, June 2006

Intern 許書菁

Objective

Benign papillomas of the breast Incidence Histologic patterns Relative cancer risk

Background

To be benign lesions without malignant potential

Do increase the risk of developing carcinoma

May behave as direct precursor lesions.

Patient Selection

Mayo Clinic

January 1, 1967 -December 31, 1991

Patients with benign diagnoses on open excisional biopsy (OEB) of the breast

Subjects were excluded from the study if

cancer diagnosis before, at, or 6 mths of the O≦EB (accounting for possible occult malignancy)

unilateral or bilateral mastectomy or reduction before OEB

refusal of research authorization no followup information available slides unavailable.

The study population

The resulting 9108 patients constituted the study cohort, with a mean follow up of 16yrs.

Fibrocystic lesions Without papillomas Nonproliferative Proliferative without Atypia Atypical hyperplasia

With papillomas Single papilloma Single papilloma + ADH or ALH Multiple papillomas Multiple papillomas + ADH or ALH

Pathologic Findings

Diagnosis Case No. Percentage

NP 6053 66.5%

PDWA 2308 25.3%

AH 267 2.9%

Papilloma 480 5.3%

Total 9108

Papilloma 480(5.3%)

Diagnosis Case No. Percentage

SP 372 4.1%

SP+A 54 0.6%

MP 41 0.5%

MP+A 13 0.1%

Total 480 5.3%

Comparison of Family History of Breast Cancer Across the Various Papilloma Subtypes

χ2 tests revealed no differences in distribution of papilloma(s) across levels of family history (P=0.49)

Frequency of Proliferative Breast Disease Across the Papilloma Subtypes

Radial scars signicantly increased frequency (16% SP, 33% SP+A, 34% MP, 31% MP+A) compared to individuals without papillomas (4%, P<0.001).

more common in SP+A, MP, and MP+A compared with SP (P<0.001, χ2 test).

ADH Case no. percentage

Inside the papilloma 16 36%

Outside the papilloma 17 38%

Inside & outside 12 26%

total 45

Atypical papilloma Case no.

percentage

ADH 33 65%

ALH 6 12%

ADH&ALH 12 23%

total 51

Low magnification scanning micrograph showing an architecturally complex papillary lesion containing fibrovascular stroma with focal cribriform growth. At higher magnification areas of cribriformlike architecture can be appreciated at the periphery of the lesion. Lack of uniform involvement and bland cytologic features preclude a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ

Atypical papilloma (low magnification). Most areas are comprised of columnar epithelium on fibrovascular stalks. At least 2 foci (arrows) show a monotonous cellular proliferation lacking stroma and containing small secondary lumens.

At scanning magnification this papilloma is characterized by marked hypercellularity and variable architecture. Higher magnification photomicrograph highlighting confluent growth of epithelium with partially developed cribriform architecture.

The architecture is primarily microglandular, but focal complex growth may also be appreciated (arrow). Higher magnification of cribriform area. Lack of uniform involvement and low grade cytology preclude a diagnosis of in situ carcinoma.

Outcome

Demographic Characteristics and SIRs of Breast Carcinoma Development

724(8%) of the patients in the cohort have developed breast carcinoma.

Kaplan-Meier curve illustrating cumulative incidenceof cancer development among the histologic groups

There was no difference in mean interval to cancer between AH and SP+A [6.5(SD 5.3) vs. 6.2(SD 4.7), P=0.87].

Proliferative disease and with papilloma

(NP cases were excluded)

SP+A had a relative risk of breast cancer roughly 20% higher than without a papilloma.

Thus, within the group of patients with proliferative disease, the presence of a papilloma marginally increased risk.

However this result did not reach statistical significance (P=0.17)

Proliferative disease and with papilloma + adjusting for AH, ductal hyperplasia,sclerosing adenosis, and r

adial scars.

The presence of papillomas increased risk by an additional 16% over those patients without a papilloma.

However, this result again failed to reach statistical signi.cance (P=0.29).

Proliferative without atypia + adjusting for AH, ductal hyperplasia,sclerosing adenosis, and radial scars.

The presence of papilloma increased risk by an additional 10% over those patients without a papilloma (P=0.42).

In the SP+A patients, risk for breast cancer was not associated with the microscopic location of ADH.

Cancers developed in 25% (4/16) of patients with ADH within papilloma compared with 29% (5/17) patients with

ADH outside of the papilloma and 17% (2/12) with ADH in both locations.

None of the patients with ALH alone (N=6) has yet developed breast carcinoma.

Breast Cancer Sidedness Among the DifferentDiagnostic Groups With Respect to Excisional Biopsy Location

56% of the patients in the NP, PDWA, and AH groups developed carcinoma in the ipsilateral (same) breast as the biopsy.

65% of the carcinomas in the papilloma group developed in the ipsilateral breast.

The likelihood for development of ipsilateral cancer among those with papilloma compared with nonpapilloma groups, was not statistically different (P=0.33, w2 test).

Conclusion

SP imparts a cancer risk similar to conventional proliferative fibrocystic change.

The presence of papilloma in, or associated with, atypia does not modify the risk connotation of ADH/ALH overall.

MP are at a significantly elevated risk for breast cancer, even if atypia is not identified in their biopsy.

Discussion

adenosis and radial scarring both are characterized by combined proliferation of epithelial and nonepithelial populations (myoepithelial cells and fibroblasts, respectively).

These findings imply that breast tissues harboring papillomas may be characterized by simultaneous activation/ proliferation of divergent cell populations.

Some may hypothesize that atypical proliferations developing within papillomas represent biologically distinct, direct precursor lesions.

the simultaneous presence of papilloma with ADH or ALH (SP+A) was associated with a breast cancer risk (5.11, 95% CI 2.64- 8.92) that was similar to, or marginally elevated, relative to other atypias in our cohort (4.17, 95% CI 3.10-5.50).

Importantly, in the papilloma cases we failed to identify significant tendency to ipsilateral breast cancer development or short interval to breast cancer diagnosis.

Thus, we identify no convincing evidence to suggest that these lesions constitute an homogeneous group of direct cancer precursors.

We also attempted to discern whether the location of atypia relative to a papilloma had special signifcance.

Although the number of cases limits definitive interpretation, our data imply that geographic location of ADH relative to a papillary lesion would not necessarily be a clinically useful indicator of breast cancer risk apart from other parameters.

Page et al

a nested case control survey that compares breast cancer risk in 122 patients with papillomas.

MP patients have a breast cancer risk that is 3 to 7 times greater than age matched women in the population overall.

Thus, our data indicate that MP, even without concurrent atypia, convey a relative risk between proliferative disease overall and AH.

we recommend that MP should receive wider recognition as a diagnostic entity and that these patients should be, at a minimum, followed carefully.

Thanks for Your Attention!