Active surveillance of women diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia on core needle biopsy may spare many women potentially unnecessary surgery, but at the risk of undertreatment for a minority: 10-year surgical outcomes of 114 consecutive cases from a single center

Management and risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia in the breast: A population-based retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend open surgery for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) in the breast due to risk of underestimating malignant disease. Considering the ongoing randomized trials of active surveillance of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), it seems reasonable to define a low-risk group of women with ADH where a conservative approach is appropriate. The aim here was to evaluate the management and risk for upgrade of lesions diagnosed as ADH in percutaneous breast biopsies in two Swedish hospitals.

METHODS

All women with a screen-detected or symptomatic breast lesion breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 2-4 and a percutaneous biopsy showing ADH between 2013 and 2022 at Sundsvall Hospital and Umeå University Hospital were included. Information regarding imaging, histopathology, clinical features, and management was retrieved from medical records. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for upgrade to malignant diagnosis after surgery were calculated by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Altogether, 101 women were included with a mean age 56.1 (range 36-93) years. Most women were selected from the national mammography screening program due to microcalcifications. Biopsies were performed with vacuum-assisted biopsy (60.4%) or core-needle biopsy (39.6%). Forty-eight women (47.5%) underwent surgery, of which 11 were upgraded to DCIS, and 7 to invasive breast cancer (upgrade rate 37.5%). Among the 53 women managed conservatively (median follow-up 74 months), one woman (1.9%) developed subsequent ipsilateral DCIS. The combined upgrade rate was 18.8%. No clinical variable statistically significantly correlating to risk of upgrade was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The upgrade rate of 37.5% in women undergoing surgery compared to an estimated 5-year risk of ipsilateral malignancy at 1.9% in women managed conservatively indicate that non-surgical management of select women with ADH is feasible. Research should focus on defining reproducible criteria differentiating high-risk from low-risk ADH.

Active Surveillance for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are relatively common breast lesions on the same spectrum of disease. Atypical ductal hyperblasia is a nonmalignant, high-risk lesion, and DCIS is a noninvasive malignancy. While a benefit of screening mammography is early cancer detection, it also leads to increased biopsy diagnosis of noninvasive lesions. Previously, treatment guidelines for both entities included surgical excision because of the risk of upgrade to invasive cancer after surgery and risk of progression to invasive cancer for DCIS. However, this universal management approach is not optimal for all patients because most lesions are not upgraded after surgery. Furthermore, some DCIS lesions do not progress to clinically significant invasive cancer. Overtreatment of high-risk lesions and DCIS is considered a burden on patients and clinicians and is a strain on the health care system. Extensive research has identified many potential histologic, clinical, and imaging factors that may predict ADH and DCIS upgrade and thereby help clinicians select which patients should undergo surgery and which may be appropriate for active surveillance (AS) with imaging. Additionally, multiple clinical trials are currently underway to evaluate whether AS for DCIS is feasible for a select group of patients. Recent advances in MRI, artificial intelligence, and molecular markers may also have an important role to play in stratifying patients and delineating best management guidelines. This review article discusses the available evidence regarding the feasibility and limitations of AS for ADH and DCIS, as well as recent advances in patient risk stratification.

High-risk and selected benign breast lesions diagnosed on core needle biopsy: Evidence for and against immediate surgical excision

The vast majority of image-detected breast abnormalities are diagnosed by percutaneous core needle biopsy (CNB) in contemporary practice. For frankly malignant lesions diagnosed by CNB, the standard practice of excision and multimodality therapy have been well-defined. However, for high-risk and selected benign lesions diagnosed by CNB, there is less consensus on optimal patient management and the need for immediate surgical excision. Here we outline the arguments for and against the practice of routine surgical excision of commonly encountered high-risk and selected benign breast lesions diagnosed by CNB. The entities reviewed include atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ, intraductal papillomas, and radial scars. The data in the peer-reviewed literature confirm the benefits of a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach that moves away from the reflexive "yes" or "no" for routine excision for a given pathologic diagnosis.

Preneoplastic Low-Risk Mammary Ductal Lesions (Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Spectrum): Current Status and Future Directions

Intraepithelial mammary ductal neoplasia is a spectrum of disease that varies from atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), low-grade (LG), intermediate-grade (IG), to high-grade (HG) ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). While ADH has the lowest prognostic significance, HG-DCIS carries the highest risk. Due to widely used screening mammography, the number of intraepithelial mammary ductal neoplastic lesions has increased. The consequence of this practice is the increase in the number of patients who are overdiagnosed and, therefore, overtreated. The active surveillance (AS) trials are initiated to separate lesions that require active treatment from those that can be safely monitored and only be treated when they develop a change in the clinical/radiologic characteristics. At the same time, the natural history of these lesions can be evaluated. This review aims to evaluate ADH/DCIS as a spectrum of intraductal neoplastic disease (risk and histomorphology); examine the controversies of distinguishing ADH vs. DCIS and the grading of DCIS; review the upgrading for both ADH and DCIS with emphasis on the variation of methods of detection and the definitions of upgrading; and evaluate the impact of all these variables on the AS trials.

Touching Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Low Risk Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Correlates with Upgrade to High Grade DCIS

AIMS

To examine our hypothesis that higher number of touching TILs in a low risk DCIS detected in a setting like active surveillance clinical trial correlates with upgrade to HG-DCIS in the subsequent excisional biopsy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The clinical inclusion criteria of the COMET clinical trial were applied on women who were mammographically screened between 2007 and 2017. In the core needle biopsy, touching TILs were assessed by counting the number of TILs touching the ductal basement membrane or away from it by one lymphocyte thickness. The highest number of TILs around a single involved duct and the average number among involved ducts were recorded. DCIS was graded as low or intermediate. Twenty-six of 129 (20.2%) cases had upgrade [14 (10.9%) to pure HG-DCIS, and 12 (9.3%) to invasive carcinoma, 2 of which with concurrent HG-DCIS]. Increased average touching TILs and intermediate grade DCIS correlated with upgrade to HG-DCIS in 11 of 16 (68.8%) cases and decreased average touching TILs and low-grade DCIS correlated with no upgrade in 89 of 113 (78.8%) [accuracy 0.775; AUC 0.746]. Increased highest touching TILs and intermediate-grade DCIS correlated with upgrade to HG-DCIS in 12 of 16 (75%) cases and decreased highest touching TILs and low-grade DCIS correlated with no upgrade in 82 of 113 (72.6%) [accuracy 0.7287; AUC 0.734]. Highest touching TILs ≥ 10 cells correlated with upgrade to invasive carcinoma and/or HG-DCIS (p=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate-grade and touching TILs may be good variables to examine in the COMET clinical trial and correlate with the risk of upgrade.

Upgrade rates and outcomes of screen-detected atypical intraductal epithelial proliferation (AIDEP) diagnosed on core needle biopsy

INTRODUCTION

Atypical intraductal epithelial proliferation (AIDEP) is a breast lesion categorised as "indeterminate" if identified on core needle biopsy (CNB). The rate at which these lesions are upgraded following diagnostic excision varies in the literature. Women diagnosed with AIDEP are thought to be at increased risk of breast cancer. Our aim was to identify the rate of upgrade to invasive or in situ carcinoma in a group of patients diagnosed with AIDEP on screening mammography and to quantify their risk of subsequent breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database containing all patients diagnosed with AIDEP on CNB between 2005 and 2012 in an Irish breast screening centre. Basic demographic data was collected along with details of the original CNB result, rate of upgrade to carcinoma and details of any subsequent cancer diagnoses.

RESULTS

In total 113 patients were diagnosed with AIDEP on CNB during the study period. The upgrade rate on diagnostic excision was 28.3% (n = 32). 6.2% (n = 7) were upgraded to invasive cancer and 22.1% (n = 25) to DCIS. 81 patients were not upgraded on diagnostic excision and were offered 5 years of annual mammographic surveillance. 9.88% (8/81) of these patients went on to receive a subsequent diagnosis of malignancy. The mean time to diagnosis of these subsequent cancers was 65.41 months (range 20.18-145.21).

CONCLUSION

Our data showing an upgrade rate of 28% to carcinoma reflects recently published data and we believe it supports the continued practice of excising AIDEP to exclude co-existing carcinoma.

Development and Validation of a Simple-to-Use Nomogram for Predicting the Upgrade of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Core Needle Biopsy in Ultrasound-Detected Breast Lesions

Background

The rate of carcinoma upgrade for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed on core needle biopsy (CNB) is variable on open excision. The purpose of the present study was to develop and validate a simple-to-use nomogram for predicting the upgrade of ADH diagnosed with ultrasound (US)-guided core needle biopsy in patients with US-detected breast lesions.

Methods

Two retrospective sets, the training set (n = 401) and the validation set (n = 186), from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between January 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinicopathological and US features were selected using univariate and multivariable logistic regression, and the significant features were incorporated to build a nomogram model. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed in the training set and validation set.

Results

Of the 587 ADH biopsies, 67.7% (training set: 267/401, 66.6%; validation set: 128/186, 68.8%) were upgraded to cancers. In the multivariable analysis, the risk factors were age [odds ratio (OR) 2.739, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.525–5.672], mass palpation (OR 3.008, 95% CI: 1.624–5.672), calcifications on US (OR 4.752, 95% CI: 2.569–9.276), ADH extent (OR 3.150, 95% CI: 1.951–5.155), and suspected malignancy (OR 4.162, CI: 2.289–7.980). The model showed good discrimination, with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.783 (95% CI: 0.736–0.831), and good calibration (p = 0.543). The application of the nomogram in the validation set still had good discrimination (AUC = 0.753, 95% CI: 0.666–0.841) and calibration (p = 0.565). Instead of surgical excision of all ADHs, if those categorized with the model to be at low risk for upgrade were surveillanced and the remainder were excised, then 63.7% (37/58) of surgeries of benign lesions could have been avoided and 78.1% (100/128) malignant lesions could be treated in time.

Conclusions

This study developed a simple-to-use nomogram by incorporating clinicopathological and US features with the overarching goal of predicting the probability of upgrade in women with ADH. The nomogram could be expected to decrease unnecessary surgery by nearly two-third and to identify most of the malignant lesions, helping guide clinical decision making with regard to surveillance versus surgical excision of ADH lesions.

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Those Bordering on Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Should Be Included in the Active Surveillance Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

Women with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), unlike those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), are denied eligibility for active surveillance clinical trials.

METHODS

We applied the inclusion criteria of the Comparison of Operative to Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy (COMET) trial to the cases of women (n = 165) at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute who had a diagnosis of ADH, ADH bordering on DCIS, or low- to intermediate-grade DCIS on core biopsy taken during screening mammography. Upgrade of lesions to high risk was based on invasive carcinoma, high-grade DCIS, or DCIS with comedo necrosis.

RESULTS

In total, nine (5.5%) lesions were upgraded: two (1.7%) reported ADH, one (5.9%) reported ADH bordering on DCIS, and six (19.4%) reported DCIS (P = .002); and two (1.6%) reclassified ADH vs seven (17.1%) reclassified DCIS (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, only increased number of foci had the potential to predict high risk (odds ratio: 1.39; P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that ADH and ADH bordering on DCIS have lower upgrade rates than DCIS. We recommend opening an active surveillance clinical trial for women with these diagnoses.

Atypical ductal hyperplasia and the risk of underestimation: tissue sampling method, multifocality, and associated calcification significantly influence the diagnostic upgrade rate based on subsequent surgical specimens

Background

Risk assessment and therapeutic options are challenges when counselling patients with an atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) to undergo either open surgery or follow-up only.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed a series of ADH lesions and assessed whether the morphological parameters of the biopsy materials indicated whether the patient should undergo surgery. A total of 207 breast biopsies [56 core needle biopsies (CNBs) and 151 vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABs)] histologically diagnosed as ADH were analyzed retrospectively, together with subsequently obtained surgical specimens. All histological slides were re-analyzed with regard to the presence/absence of ADH-associated calcification, other B3 lesions (lesion of uncertain malignant potential), extent of the lesion, and the presence of multifocality.

Results

The overall underestimation rate for the whole cohort was 39% (57% for CNB, 33% for VAB). In the univariate analysis, the method of biopsy (CNB vs VAB, p = 0.002) and presence of multifocality in VAB specimens (p = 0.0176) were significant risk factors for the underestimation of the disease (ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer detected on subsequent open biopsy). In the multivariate logistic regression model, the absence of calcification (p = 0.0252) and the presence of multifocality (unifocal vs multifocal ADH, p = 0.0147) in VAB specimens were significant risk factors for underestimation.

Conclusions

Multifocal ADH without associated calcification diagnosed by CNB tends to have a higher upgrade rate. Because the upgrade rate was 16.5% even in the group with the lowest risk (VAB-diagnosed unifocal ADH with calcification), we could not identify a subgroup that would not require an open biopsy.