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

Breast cancer detection using enhanced IRI-numerical engine and inverse heat transfer modeling: model description and clinical validation

Effective treatment of breast cancer relies heavily on early detection. Routine annual mammography is a widely accepted screening technique that has resulted in significantly improving the survival rate. However, it suffers from low sensitivity resulting in high false positives from screening. To overcome this problem, adjunctive technologies such as ultrasound are employed on about 10% of women recalled for additional screening following mammography. These adjunctive techniques still result in a significant number of women, about 1.6%, who undergo biopsy while only 0.4% of women screened have cancers. The main reason for missing cancers during mammography screening arises from the masking effect of dense breast tissue. The presence of a tumor results in the alteration of temperature field in the breast, which is not influenced by the tissue density. In the present paper, the IRI-Numerical Engine is presented as an adjunct for detecting cancer from the surface temperature data. It uses a computerized inverse heat transfer approach based on Pennes's bioheat transfer equations. Validation of this enhanced algorithm is conducted on twenty-three biopsy-proven breast cancer patients after obtaining informed consent under IRB protocol. The algorithm correctly predicted the size and location of cancerous tumors in twenty-four breasts, while twenty-two contralateral breasts were also correctly predicted to have no cancer (one woman had bilateral breast cancer). The tumors are seen as highly perfused and metabolically active heat sources that alter the surface temperatures that are used in heat transfer modeling. Furthermore, the results from this study with twenty-four biopsy-proven cancer cases indicate that the detection of breast cancer is not affected by breast density. This study indicates the potential of the IRI-Numerical Engine as an effective adjunct to mammography. A large scale clinical study in a statistically significant sample size is needed before integrating this approach in the current protocol.

Is it Time to Retire the Term of Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma in Situ and Replace it With Ductal Neoplasia?

As the leading cause of cancer morbidity and the second leading cause of cancer mortality among women, breast cancer continues to remain a major global public health problem. Consequently, significant attention has been directed toward early breast cancer detection and prevention. As a result, the number of image-detected biopsies has increased, and minimally invasive diagnostic procedures have almost replaced open surgical biopsies. Therefore, pathologists are expected to provide more information with less tissue and diagnose increasing numbers of atypical proliferative breast lesions, in situ lesions, and small breast carcinomas. This is a difficult task, as reflected by continuous reports highlighting the challenges associated with morphologic distinction between atypical ductal hyperplasia and low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. The current interobserver variability among pathologists to accurately define these two entities often leads to silent overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Up to now, there are no reproducible morphologic features and/or any reliable biomarkers that can accurately separate the above-mentioned entities. Despite these reports, patients diagnosed with low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ are subject to cancer therapy regardless of the fact that low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ is known to be an indolent lesion. Studies have shown that low and high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ are genetically different forms of breast cancer precursors; however, the term ductal carcinoma in situ is followed by cancer therapy regardless of the grade and biology of the tumor. In contrast, patients with the diagnoses of atypical ductal hyperplasia do not undergo cancer therapy. In the current article, attempts are made to highlight the continuous dilemma in distinction between atypical ductal hyperplasia and low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Going forward, we suggest that low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ be referred to as ductal neoplasia. This alternative terminology allows for different management and follow-up strategies by eliminating the word carcinoma.

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.

Active Surveillance of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia of the Breast

BACKGROUND

When needle core biopsy (NCB) of the breast yields atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), excision is typically recommended. The natural history of ADH undergoing active surveillance (AS) is not well described. We investigate the rates of upgrade to malignancy of excised ADH and the rates of radiographic progression under AS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records of 220 cases of ADH on NCB. Of patients who had surgery within 6 months of NCB, we examined the malignancy upgrade rate. In the AS cohort, we examined rates of radiographic progression on interval imaging.

RESULTS

The malignancy upgrade rate among patients who underwent immediate excision (n = 185) was 15.7%: 14.1% (n = 26) ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 1.6% (n = 3) invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Upgrade to malignancy was less common in lesions <4 mm in size (0%) or with focal ADH (5%), and more common among lesions presenting with a radiographic mass (26%). Among the 35 patients who underwent AS, median follow-up was 20 months. Two lesions progressed on imaging (incidence 3.8% at 2 years). One patient without radiographic progression was found to have IDC at delayed surgery. The remaining lesions remained stable (46%), decreased in size (11%), or resolved (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that AS is a safe approach to managing ADH on NCB for most patients. This could spare many patients with ADH from unnecessary surgery. Given that AS is being investigated for low-risk DCIS in multiple international prospective trials, these results suggest that AS should also be investigated for ADH.

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.

Significance of Removing Comedonecrosis as an Exclusion Criterion in Mammary Low-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Managed in an Active Surveillance Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the consequences of comedonecrosis omission as an exclusion criterion of the Comparison of Operative vs Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy (COMET) trial.

METHODS

The clinical inclusion criteria of the COMET trial were applied on women who were mammographically screened between 2007 and 2017 and had a diagnosis of low- or intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The percentage of ductal diameter occupied by necrosis was calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 129 (20.2%) cases were upgraded. Larger calcification span correlated with upgrade (P = .02), with the best cutoff of 1.1 cm, and negative predictive value of 86%. When solely analyzing cases with no comedonecrosis (n = 76), none of the variables correlated with upgrade. Comedonecrosis was significantly correlated with upgrade to invasive carcinoma (P = .041), with the best cutoff of 53% of ductal diameter occupied by necrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that comedonecrosis and span of mammographic calcifications could be risk factors in women managed with active surveillance.

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.

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia after Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: Can We Reduce the Upgrade to Breast Cancer to an Acceptable Rate?

(1) Background: to evaluate which factors can reduce the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) to in situ or invasive carcinoma in patients who underwent vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) and subsequent surgical excision. (2) Methods: 2955 VABBs were reviewed; 141 patients with a diagnosis of ADH were selected for subsequent surgical excision. The association between patients’ characteristics and the upgrade rate to breast cancer was evaluated in both univariate and multivariate analyses. (3) Results: the upgrade rates to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive carcinoma (IC) were, respectively, 29.1% and 7.8%. The pooled upgrade rate to DCIS or IC was statistically lower at univariate analysis, considering the following parameters: complete removal of the lesion (p-value < 0.001); BIRADS ≤ 4a (p-value < 0.001); size of the lesion ≤15 mm (p-value: 0.002); age of the patients <50 years (p-value: 0.035). (4) Conclusions: the overall upgrade rate of ADH to DCIS or IC is high and, as already known, surgery should be recommended. However, ADH cases should always be discussed in multidisciplinary meetings: some parameters appear to be related to a lower upgrade rate. Patients presenting these parameters could be strictly followed up to avoid overtreatment.

B3 lesion upgrade rates in a tertiary Australian breast centre: a 8-year experience (2012-2019)

BACKGROUND

B3 breast lesions identified on core needle biopsy have uncertain malignant potential. Traditional management of these lesions has been surgical excision, but there is growing interest in less invasive and more cost-effective alternatives such as vacuum-assisted excisional biopsy (VAEB). Determining the rate of malignant upgrade for B3 lesions is important as it may identify low-risk lesions where VAEB could be considered.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of women undergoing an elective excisional biopsy for a B3 lesion identified on core needle biopsy at a tertiary Australian breast centre. The pre-operative biopsy diagnosis and subsequent excisional biopsy diagnosis were used to calculate the proportion of cases where the diagnosis was upgraded to malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 299 eligible patients were identified. Pre-operative diagnosis of papillary lesion with atypia was associated with the highest upgrade rate (50%, n = 12). The next highest upgrade rates occurred in those with flat epithelial atypia (37.50%, n = 8); atypical ductal hyperplasia (24.71%, n = 85); lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)/atypical lobular hyperplasia with calcification (17.65%, n = 17); and papillary lesion without atypia (4.72%, n = 106). Patients with radial scar (n = 51), classical LCIS without calcification (n = 7) and mucocoele-like lesion (n = 8) had a 0% upgrade rate.

CONCLUSION

VAEB may be appropriate for low malignant risk lesions such as papillary lesion without atypia, mucocoele-like lesion and radial scar lesion without atypia. Open-surgical-excisional biopsy remains appropriate for high upgrade lesions such as atypical ductal hyperplasia, papillary lesion with atypia, flat epithelial atypia and classical LCIS with calcification. Long-term prospective randomized multicentre studies and continuing multidisciplinary approach is recommended for future clinical implementation.