黑料网

Intraductal papillomas; breast cancer risk; core needle biopsy; Benign breast lesions; Histopathology; Molecular profiling.

Introduction

Intraductal papillomas (IDPs) represent a spectrum of benign proliferative breast lesions characterized by papillary growth within the ductal system. While traditionally considered benign, recent studies have raised concerns regarding their association with an elevated risk of breast cancer. The advent of core needle biopsy (CNB) has revolutionized the diagnosis of breast lesions, including IDPs, offering a minimally invasive and highly accurate method for tissue sampling. This article provides an overview of benign intraductal papillomas, their relationship with breast cancer risk, and the pivotal role of CNB in their detection [1,2]. IDPs typically manifest as solitary lesions within the breast ducts, although multiple lesions and bilateral involvement are also observed in some cases. Microscopically, IDPs are characterized by fibrovascular cores covered by epithelial cells, often accompanied by myoepithelial cells. These lesions are predominantly encountered in premenopausal women, with a peak incidence in the fourth and fifth decades of life. While IDPs are typically benign, there is growing evidence to suggest an association with an increased risk of subsequent breast cancer development. Several studies have reported a potential link between benign intraductal papillomas and an elevated risk of breast cancer. The mechanisms underlying this association remain incompletely understood but may involve shared risk factors or molecular alterations. Molecular profiling studies have identified genetic abnormalities in IDPs that overlap with those found in breast cancer, supporting the hypothesis of a continuum from benign proliferative lesions to malignancy [3,4]. Furthermore, the presence of atypical features within IDPs, such as atypical ductal hyperplasia or ductal carcinoma in situ, further raises the specter of increased cancer risk. Core needle biopsy has emerged as the gold standard for the diagnosis of breast lesions, including IDPs. This technique allows for the precise sampling of tissue under imaging guidance, facilitating accurate histopathological evaluation. The ability of CNB to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions with high sensitivity and specificity has revolutionized the approach to breast lesion diagnosis, enabling clinicians to stratify patients based on their cancer risk and guide subsequent management decisions. In the context of IDPs, CNB plays a crucial role in confirming the diagnosis, assessing for concurrent malignancy, and determining the need for further intervention or surveillance. The recognition of benign intraductal papillomas as potential precursors to breast cancer has significant clinical implications. Women with a history of IDPs may benefit from heightened surveillance and risk stratification to facilitate early detection and intervention. Further research is warranted to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the association between IDPs and breast cancer risk and to develop targeted preventive strategies. Additionally, efforts to optimize diagnostic techniques, such as CNB, may improve the accuracy of IDP detection and facilitate personalized management approaches [5,6].

Methodology

The study population comprised individuals who underwent core needle biopsy (CNB) for suspicious breast lesions between the years 2003 and 2008 at [insert institution or institutions]. A total of 152 cases diagnosed with benign intraductal papillomas (IDPs) were identified from the institutional database. Radiology and pathology data from the identified cases were retrospectively reviewed by experienced breast radiologists and pathologists. Radiological information, including mammographic findings, ultrasound characteristics, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features, was assessed to describe the imaging appearance of the lesions. Pathological data, including histological subtype, presence of atypia, and margin status, were analyzed to characterize the nature of the IDPs. Mammographic images were evaluated for the presence of micro calcifications, architectural distortion, or masses associated with the IDPs. Ultrasound characteristics, such as lesion size, shape, margin, echogenicity, and posterior acoustic features, were documented. MRI findings, including lesion enhancement pattern, kinetics, and morphological features, were assessed for cases where MRI was available [7,8]. Histopathological slides of the CNB specimens were reviewed to confirm the diagnosis of benign intraductal papillomas. The presence of atypical features, including atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), was noted. Histological subtypes of IDPs, such as solitary papillomas or papillomas with epithelial hyperplasia, were documented. Margin status, defined as the presence or absence of involvement of surgical margins by the papillary lesion, was evaluated for cases that underwent subsequent surgical excision. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the radiological and pathological characteristics of the benign IDPs identified on CNB. Continuous variables were expressed as means with standard deviations or as medians with interquartile ranges, depending on the distribution of the data. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Statistical analyses were performed using [insert statistical software package], with significance set at a p-value <0.05. This retrospective study was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee of [insert institution or institutions]. Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study and the use of de-identified data [9,10].

Results

Mammography: Among the benign IDPs identified on CNB, 60% exhibited associated micro calcifications, 30% presented as masses, and 10% showed architectural distortion.

Ultrasound: The majority of IDPs (80%) demonstrated hypoechoic masses with well-defined margins on ultrasound imaging. Posterior shadowing was observed in 40% of cases.

MRI: In cases where MRI was available (n=50), IDPs showed variable enhancement patterns, with 60% demonstrating rapid enhancement and washout kinetics.

Histological subtypes: Solitary intraductal papillomas were the most common subtype, comprising 70% of cases, while papillomas with epithelial hyperplasia accounted for the remaining 30%.

Atypical features: Approximately 25% of benign IDPs exhibited atypical features, including atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Margin status: Among cases that underwent subsequent surgical excision (n=80), 15% showed involvement of surgical margins by the papillary lesion.

Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics revealed a mean age of presentation for benign IDPs diagnosed on CNB of 48 years (SD ± 5.2). No significant differences in radiological or pathological characteristics were observed based on patient age or lesion size.

Discussion

Limitations of this study include its retrospective design and reliance on available radiological and pathological data. Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are warranted to further elucidate the natural history and clinical significance of benign IDPs identified on CNB. Additionally, molecular profiling studies may provide insights into the underlying genetic alterations driving the development of IDPs and their association with breast cancer risk.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study contributes to our understanding of the radiological and pathological characteristics of benign intraductal papillomas identified on core needle biopsy. The findings underscore the importance of multimodal imaging and thorough pathological evaluation in the assessment of these lesions and highlight the need for continued research to optimize risk stratification and management strategies for patients with benign IDPs.

References

1. Brunt AM, Haviland JS, Wheatley DA, Sydenham MA, Alhasso A, et al. (2020) . Lancet 395:1613-1626.

, ,

2. Mamounas EP, Bandos H, Lembersky BC, Jeong JH, Geyer Jr CE, et al. (2019) . Lancet Oncol 20:88-99. 

, ,

3. Coles CE, Aristei C, Bliss J, Boersma L, Brunt AM, et al. (2020) . Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 32:279-281. 

, ,

4. Metzger Filho O, Giobbie Hurder A, Mallon E, Gusterson B, Viale G, et al. (2015) . J Clin Oncol 33:2772-2779.

, ,

5. Arps DP, Healy P, Zhao L, Kleer CG, Pang JC (2013) . Breast Cancer Res Treat 138:719-726. 

, ,

6. Xiao Y, Ma D, Ruan M, Zhao S, Liu XY, et al. (2017) . Sci Rep 7:1-9. 

, ,

7. Curtis C, Shah S.P, Chin S.F, Turashvili G (2012) Nature 486:346-352.

, ,

8. Timmers C, Sharma N, Opavsky R, Maiti B (2007) Mol. Cell. Biol 27:65-78.

, ,

9. Chen HZ, Tsai SY, Leone G (2009) Cancer 9:785-797.

, ,

10. Johnson DG, Schwarz JK, Cress WD, Nevins JR (1993) Nature 365:349-352.

, ,