Role of columnar cell lesions in breast carcinogenesis: analysis of chromosome 16 copy number changes by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification

Evolutionary histories of breast cancer and related clones

Recent studies have documented frequent evolution of clones carrying common cancer mutations in apparently normal tissues, which are implicated in cancer development1-3. However, our knowledge is still missing with regard to what additional driver events take place in what order, before one or more of these clones in normal tissues ultimately evolve to cancer. Here, using phylogenetic analyses of multiple microdissected samples from both cancer and non-cancer lesions, we show unique evolutionary histories of breast cancers harbouring der(1;16), a common driver alteration found in roughly 20% of breast cancers. The approximate timing of early evolutionary events was estimated from the mutation rate measured in normal epithelial cells. In der(1;16)(+) cancers, the derivative chromosome was acquired from early puberty to late adolescence, followed by the emergence of a common ancestor by the patient's early 30s, from which both cancer and non-cancer clones evolved. Replacing the pre-existing mammary epithelium in the following years, these clones occupied a large area within the premenopausal breast tissues by the time of cancer diagnosis. Evolution of multiple independent cancer founders from the non-cancer ancestors was common, contributing to intratumour heterogeneity. The number of driver events did not correlate with histology, suggesting the role of local microenvironments and/or epigenetic driver events. A similar evolutionary pattern was also observed in another case evolving from an AKT1-mutated founder. Taken together, our findings provide new insight into how breast cancer evolves.

Assessment of malignant risk stratification for microcalcifications interpreted as “amorphous” morphology on mammography: A study based on the 5th edition of breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

PURPOSE

To investigate the malignant risk stratification of microcalcifications interpreted as amorphous morphology on mammography according to the coexistence of punctate microcalcifications based on the 5th edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

METHOD

Between March 2013 and September 2020, 367 microcalcifications interpreted as amorphous morphology on mammography with surgical biopsies were included. The amorphous microcalcifications were classified into a predominantly punctate group (A, <50% of amorphous), a predominantly amorphous group (B, >50% of amorphous), and an only amorphous group (C, 100% of amorphous). The distribution was classified into diffuse, regional, grouped, and linear/segmental. The reference standard was the pathology. The positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated and compared using the Chi-square's test or Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

The overall PPV of microcalcifications interpreted as having an amorphous morphology was 5.2%. The PPV across groups significantly increased in proportion to the amorphous morphology, with 1.0% in group A, 5.6% in group B, and 23.3% in group C (p <.001). Furthermore, the PPV between group A and groups B plus C (10.1%) and groups A plus B (2.8%) and group C were significantly different (p <.001). The PPV of distribution was 0% for diffuse, 4.9% for regional, 5.0% for grouped, and 11.1% for linear/segmental distributions, without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure amorphous microcalcifications are suitable for category 4B. However, when they coexist with punctate morphology, the malignant risk decreases suitable for category 4A or lower. When amorphous microcalcifications coexist with a predominantly punctate morphology, follow-up should be considered.

Papillomatous breast lesions with atypical columnar cell features

AIMS

Columnar cell lesions (CCLs) are recognised breast cancer precursor lesions. Intraductal papillomas are usually lined by benign (polyclonal) cells. Although papillomas with monoclonal lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)/ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)) have been described, CCLs have not been described in papillomas.

METHODS

We present two papillary breast lesions lined by a single layer of luminal cells resembling atypical CCL/flat epithelial atypia (FEA). We compared these two lesions with 13 benign intraductal papillomas, and 2 papillomas with ADH/DCIS grade 1 features as controls were immunohistochemically stained for the oestrogen receptor alpha (oestrogen receptor) and progesterone receptors (PR), cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and cyclin D1.

RESULTS

Oestrogen receptor/PR expression was variable, with areas with ≥85% hormone receptor positivity in both morphologically normal papillomas and papillomas with ADH. In ADH areas, CK5 expression was seen in ≤5% of cells while cyclin D1 expression was high (>60%). The two papillary lesions with FEA were 100% oestrogen receptor and 90% cyclin D1 positive, and low on PR/CK5. There was only one morphologically normal papilloma with similar areas of low CK5 (5%) and high cyclin D1 expression; in all other morphologically benign papillomas CK5 expression varied between 10% and 50% and cyclin D1 expression was ≤50%. The papillary lesion with FEA that could be tested showed 16q losses, the hallmark genetic change in low nuclear grade breast neoplasias, in contrast to nine morphologically benign papillomas that could be tested.

CONCLUSION

We present two papillomatous breast lesions with atypical CCL morphology and 16q loss, for which we propose the term papillary FEA.

Dimorphic cells: a common feature throughout the low nuclear grade breast neoplasia spectrum

Columnar cell lesions (CCLs) are recognized precursor lesions of the low nuclear grade breast neoplasia family. CCLs are cystic enlarged terminal duct lobular units with monotonous (monoclonal) columnar-type luminal cells. CCLs without atypia are regarded as benign and CCLs with atypia as true precursor lesions with clonal molecular changes, a certain progression risk, and an association with more advanced lesions. However, reproducibility of designating atypia in CCL is not optimal, and no objective markers of atypia have been identified, although 16q loss seems to be associated with atypical CCLs. Dimorphic ("pale") cell populations have been described in low nuclear grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) but not in CCLs and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). Therefore, we searched for pale cells in CCL (N = 60), ADH (N = 41), and DCIS grade 1 (N = 84). Diagnostic criteria were derived from the WHO, and atypia was designated according to the Schnitt criteria. Pale cells occurred in 0% (0/30), 73% (22/30), 56% (23/41), and 76% (64/84) of CCLs without atypia, CCLs with atypia, ADH, and DCIS grade 1, respectively. Pale cells expressed ERα, E-cadherin and p120 and variably cyclin D1, and lacked expression of CK5 and p63. In conclusion, dimorphic "pale" cells occur throughout the low nuclear grade progression spectrum, increasing in frequency with progression. Interestingly, CCL lesions without atypia do not seem to bear showed pale cells, indicating that the presence of pale cells may serve as a diagnostic morphological feature of atypia in CCLs.

Are Columnar Cell Lesions the Earliest Non-Obligate Precursor in the Low-Grade Breast Neoplasia Pathway?

Columnar cell lesions (CCLs) of the breast comprise a spectrum of morphologic alterations of the terminal duct lobular unit involving variably dilated and enlarged acini lined by columnar epithelial cells. The World Health Organization currently classifies CCLs without atypia as columnar cell change (CCC) and columnar cell hyperplasia (CCH), whereas flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is a unifying term encompassing both CCC and CCH with cytologic atypia. CCLs have been increasingly recognized in stereotactic core needle biopsies (CNBs) performed for the assessment of calcifications. CCLs are believed to represent the earliest non-obligate precursor of low-grade invasive breast carcinomas as they share molecular alterations and often coexist with entities in the low-grade breast neoplasia pathway. Despite this association, however, the risk of progression of CCLs to invasive breast carcinoma appears low and may not exceed that of concurrent proliferative lesions. As the reported upgrade rates of pure CCL/FEA when identified as the most advanced high-risk lesion on CNB vary widely, the management of FEA diagnosed on CNB remains controversial. This review will include a historical overview of CCLs and will examine histologic diagnostic criteria, molecular alterations, prognosis and issues related to upgrade rates and clinical management.

Blunt duct adenosis: a separate entity from columnar cell lesions?

Blunt duct adenosis (BDA) is a breast lesion first described by Foote and Stewart in 1945 as a proliferative benign lesion of the terminal duct lobular unit. Throughout recent decades, further literature descriptions of BDA have been confusing. Some consider BDA to be a separate entity, some a growth pattern of columnar cell changes. The WHO 2012 considered BDA and columnar cell changes to be synonyms, while columnar cell lesions, especially those with atypia, are part of a spectrum of early precursors of the low nuclear grade breast neoplasia family. In the updated WHO 2019 version, BDA is mentioned as 'not recommended' terminology for columnar cell lesions without further discussing it, leaving the question open if BDA should be considered a separate entity.Good diagnostic criteria for BDA have however largely been lacking, and its biological background has not yet been unravelled. In this paper, we point out that BDA is mainly associated with benign breast lesions and not with other recognised precursor lesions. Further, 16q loss, which is the hallmark molecular event in the low nuclear grade breast neoplasia family, is lacking in BDA. We therefore hypothesise that BDA may not be a true precursor lesion but a benign polyclonal lesion, and propose morphological diagnostic criteria to better differentiate it from columnar cell lesions.

Atypia in breast pathology: what pathologists need to know

Despite the importance of atypia in diagnosing and classifying breast lesions, the definition of atypia varies depending on the context, with a lack of consistent and objective criteria for assessment. Atypia in breast pathology may be cytonuclear and/or architectural with different applications and implications. Cytonuclear atypia is used to assist the distinction of various intraductal epithelial proliferative lesions including usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH) versus atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to grade DCIS. In invasive carcinoma, nuclear atypia (i.e., nuclear pleomorphism) is a component of the histological grading system. Stromal cell cytonuclear atypia is one of the key features used to distinguish fibroadenoma from phyllodes tumour (PT) and to classify PT as benign, borderline or malignant. Similarly, cytonuclear atypia is used in the evaluation of myoepithelial cell alterations in the breast. Architectural atypia is used to differentiate flat epithelial atypia (FEA) from ADH or DCIS. In addition to the inherent subjectivity in the interpretation of atypia, which presents as a morphological continuum reflecting a biological spectrum, the lack of standardisation in defining atypia augments diagnostic discordance in breast pathology, with potential implications for patient management. Evidence to date suggests that the traditional criteria used to assess atypia may require modification in the era of digital pathology primary diagnosis. This review aims to provide a comprehensive review of atypia in breast pathology with reference to inconsistencies, challenges and limitations.

Chromosome Abnormalities: New Insights into Their Clinical Significance in Cancer

Chromosomal abnormalities, consisting of numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities, are a common characteristic of cancer. Numerical chromosome abnormalities, mainly including aneuploidy and chromosome instability, are caused by chromosome segregation errors in mitosis, whereas structural chromosome abnormalities are a consequence of DNA damage and comprise focal/arm-level chromosome gain or loss. Recent advances have started to unveil the mechanisms by which chromosomal abnormalities can facilitate tumorigenesis and change the cellular fitness and the expression or function of RNAs and proteins. Accumulating evidence suggests that chromosome abnormalities represent a genomic signature that is linked to cancer prognosis and reaction to chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In this review, we discuss the most recent findings on the role of chromosome abnormalities in tumorigenesis and cancer progression, with a particular emphasis on how aneuploidy and chromosome instability influence cancer therapy and prognosis. We also highlight the distribution and clinical application of the structural chromosome abnormalities in various cancer types. A better understanding of the role of chromosome abnormalities will be beneficial to the development of precision oncology and suggest future directions for the field.