Article

Relationship between clinical and pathologic features of ductal carcinoma in situ and patient age: an analysis of 657 patients.

Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue Boston, MA 02215, USA.
The American journal of surgical pathology (Impact Factor: 4.59). 12/2009; 33(12):1802-8. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181b7cb7a
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prior studies have shown that young patient age at diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of local recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving therapy. Whether this can be explained by differences in clinical or pathologic features of DCIS according to age is an unresolved issue. We compared clinical and pathologic features of DCIS among 657 women in 4 age groups: <45 years (n=111), 45 to 54 years (n=191), 55 to 64 years (n=160), and 65+ years (n=195). DCIS presented as a mammographic abnormality less often in younger than in older women (68%, 82%, 81%, and 86% for women <45, 45 to 54, 55 to 64, and 65+ y, respectively; P=0.003). Among the pathologic features analyzed, DCIS extent as determined by the number of low power fields was greater in younger than in older women (mean number of low power fields were 18.6, 14.2, 10.8, and 11.3 in women <45, 45 to 54, 55 to 64 and 65+ y; P<0.001). In addition, cancerization of lobules was present more often in younger than in older women (77%, 73%, 66%, and 50% for women <45, 45 to 54, 55 to 64 and 65+ y, respectively; P<0.0001). Of note, we found no statistically significant relationship between age and DCIS architectural pattern, nuclear grade, comedo necrosis or expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. We conclude that DCIS in younger women is more often symptomatic, is more extensive, and more often shows cancerization of lobules than DCIS in older women. Whether these features contribute to the higher local recurrence risk in young women with DCIS treated with the breast-conserving therapy requires further study.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ninah S Achacoso, May 08, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several studies have demonstrated that familial breast cancers associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations differ in their morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics. Cancers associated with BRCA1 are poorly differentiated infiltrating ductal carcinomas (IDCs) with higher mitotic counts and pleomorphism and less tubule formation than sporadic tumours. In addition, more cases with the morphological features of typical or atypical medullary carcinoma are seen in these patients. Breast carcinomas from BRCA2 mutation carriers tend to be of higher grade than sporadic age-matched controls. Regarding immunophenotypic features. BRCA1 tumours have been found to be more frequently oestrogen receptor- (ER) and progesterone receptor-(PR) negative, and p53-positive than age-matched controls, whereas these differences are not usually found in BRCA2-associated tumours. A higher frequency and unusual location of p53 mutations have been described in BRCA1/2 carcinomas. Furthermore, BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast carcinomas show a low frequency of HER-2 expression. Recent studies have shown that most BRCA1 carcinomas belong to the basal cell phenotype, a subtype of high grade, highly proliferating ER/HER2-negative breast carcinoma characterized by the expression of basal or myoepithelial markers, such as basal keratins, P-cadherin, EGFR, etc. This phenotype occurs with a higher incidence in BRCA1 tumours than in sporadic carcinomas and is rarely found in BRCA2 carcinomas. Hereditary carcinomas not attributable to BRCA1/2 mutations have phenotypic similarities with BRCA2 tumours, but tend to be of lesser grade and lower proliferation index. The pathological features of hereditary breast cancer can drive specific treatment and influence the process of mutation screening.
    Disease markers 11/1999; 15(1-3):113-4. · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are predisposed to breast cancer. The BRCA1-associated breast cancers have distinct morphology, being more often medullary-like, triple negative and showing a 'basal' phenotype. On the other hand, BRCA2 and BRCAX cancers are a heterogeneous group without a specific phenotype. When incorporated into risk assessment models, pathology data improves prediction of carrier status. The role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in DNA repair is being exploited to develop novel therapies, for example, using the poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors. A number of low-to-moderate-penetrant genes/loci have also been identified, but their role and contribution in breast cancer development is still under investigation.
    Modern Pathology 05/2010; 23 Suppl 2:S46-51. DOI:10.1038/modpathol.2010.37 · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For many years, patient age, axillary lymph node status, tumor size, histological features (especially histological grade and lymphovascular invasion), hormone receptor status, and HER2 status have been the major factors used to categorize patients with breast cancer in order to assess prognosis and determine the appropriate therapy. These factors are most often viewed in combination to group patients into various risk categories. Although these risk categories are useful for assessing prognosis and risk in groups of patients with breast cancer, their role in determining prognosis and evaluating risk in an individual patient is more limited. Therefore, better methods are required to help assess prognosis and determine the most appropriate treatment for patients on an individual basis. Recently, various molecular techniques, particular gene expression profiling, have been increasingly used to help refine breast cancer classification and to assess prognosis and response to therapy. Although the precise role of these newer techniques in the daily management of patients with breast cancer continues to evolve, it is clear that they have the potential to provide value above and beyond that provided by the traditional clinical and pathological prognostic and predictive factors.
    Modern Pathology 05/2010; 23 Suppl 2:S60-4. DOI:10.1038/modpathol.2010.33 · 6.36 Impact Factor