Is Surgical Excision of Focal Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Warranted? Experience at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: The core-needle biopsy (CNB) diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) generally mandates follow-up excision, but controversy exists on whether small foci of ADH require surgical management. This study evaluated the upgrade rate at excision of focal ADH (fADH), defined as 1 focus spanning ≤ 2 mm. METHODS: We retrospectively identified in-house CNBs with ADH as the highest-risk lesion obtained between January 2013 and December 2017. A radiologist assessed radiologic-pathologic concordance. All CNB slides were reviewed by two breast pathologists, and ADH was classified as fADH and nonfocal ADH based on extent. Only cases with follow-up excision were included. The slides of excision specimens with upgrade were reviewed. RESULTS: The final study cohort consisted of 208 radiologic-pathologic concordant CNBs, including 98 fADH and 110 nonfocal ADH. The imaging targets were calcifications (n = 157), a mass (n = 15), nonmass enhancement (n = 27), and mass enhancement (n = 9). Excision of fADH yielded seven (7%) upgrades (5 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 2 invasive carcinoma) versus 24 (22%) upgrades (16 DCIS, 8 invasive carcinoma) at excision of nonfocal ADH (p = 0.01). Both invasive carcinomas found at excision of fADH were subcentimeter tubular carcinomas away from the biopsy site and deemed incidental. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show a significantly lower upgrade rate at excision of focal ADH than nonfocal ADH. This information can be valuable if nonsurgical management of patients with radiologic-pathologic concordant CNB diagnosis of focal ADH is being considered.

Clinical and pathologic features associated with PD-L1 (SP142) expression in stromal tumor-infiltrating immune cells of triple-negative breast carcinoma.

The Ventana PD-L1 SP142 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay is the FDA-approved companion diagnostic assay for atezolizumab therapy selection for patients with PD-L1-positive locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC). We aimed to elucidate clinical, pathologic, and molecular features associated with PD-L1 expression in TNBCs. Clinical, pathologic, and next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based molecular data for TNBCs tested with PD-L1 (SP142) IHC at our institution between 11/2018 and 12/2019 were retrieved and reviewed. PD-L1 positivity was defined as ≥1% IC staining. Patients with metastatic TNBC treated at first line with atezolizumab regimens were evaluated for treatment response and for time to treatment failure (TTF). Among 156 TNBCs, PD-L1 was positive in 47.4% of cases. Primary TNBCs were significantly more frequently PD-L1 positive, compared with recurrent/metastatic samples (p = 0.002). PD-L1-positive TNBCs had increased stromal IC, compared with PD-L1-negative samples (p < 0.001). The repertoire of somatic genetic alterations of PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative TNBCs was similar. Matched primary and recurrent/metastatic TNBC samples were available for eight patients, in whom four had discordant results. Thirty patients with metastatic TNBC were treated with atezolizumab regimens, with treatment failure occurring in 16 patients and a median TTF of 5.1 months in this early evaluation. The findings of this study show stromal ICs in primary TNBCs are more likely to show PD-L1 positivity than in recurrent or metastatic samples. This information should guide selection of samples suitable for testing. Further studies are needed to identify other features associated with PD-L1-positive breast carcinomas and clinical benefit of treatment.

Impact of an In Situ Component on Outcome After In-Breast Tumor Recurrence in Patients Treated with Breast-Conserving Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Among all in-breast tumor recurrences (IBTR) following breast-conserving therapy (BCT), some comprise metachronous new primaries (NPs) while others are true recurrences (TRs). Establishing this distinction remains a challenge. METHODS: We studied 3932 women who underwent BCT for stage I-III breast cancer from 1998 to 2008. Of these, 115 (2.9%) had an IBTR. Excluding patients with inoperable/unresectable recurrences or simultaneous distant metastases, 81 patients with isolated IBTR comprised the study population. An IBTR was categorized as an NP rather than a TR if it included an in situ component. The log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier method were used to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: At a median of 64.5 months from IBTR diagnosis, 28 of 81 patients had DFS events. Five-year DFS was 43.1% in the TR group (p = 0.0001) versus 80.3% in the NP group, while 5-year OS was 59.7% in the TR group versus 91.7% among those with NPs (p = 0.0011). On univariate analysis, increasing tumor size, high grade, positive margins, lymphovascular invasion, node involvement, lack of axillary surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and IBTR type (TR vs. NP) were significantly associated with worse DFS. Controlling for tumor size and margin status, TRs remained significantly associated with lower DFS (hazard ratio 3.717, 95% confidence interval 1.607-8.595, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The presence of an in situ component is associated with prognosis among patients with IBTR following BCT and may be useful in differentiating TRs and NPs.

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Bordering on Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are very different. Yet there are "borderline" breast lesions that have characteristics of both ADH and DCIS. We examined interobserver diagnostic variability for such lesions and correlated pathologic features of the lesions with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We identified all cases of borderline ADH/DCIS lesions treated at our center from 1997 to 2010. Five specialized breast pathologists blinded to clinical outcomes independently reviewed all available slides from each case and were instructed to classify each as benign, ADH, or DCIS. A majority diagnosis (MajDx) was defined as a diagnosis agreed upon by ≥3 pathologists. RESULTS: A total of 105 women with borderline ADH/DCIS and slides available for review were identified. The MajDx was ADH in 84 (80%), and DCIS in 18 (17%). There were split diagnoses in 3 (3%). MajDx of DCIS correlated significantly with lesion size and nuclear grade. There was diagnostic agreement by all 5 pathologists in 30% of cases, 4 pathologists in 42%, and 3 pathologists in 25%. At a median follow-up of 37 months, 4 (3.8%) patients developed subsequent ipsilateral breast carcinoma (2 invasive, 2 DCIS); all 4 cases had MajDx of ADH. CONCLUSIONS: Borderline ADH/DCIS represents an entity for which reproducible categorization as ADH or DCIS cannot be achieved. Furthermore, histologic features of borderline lesions resulting in MajDx of ADH vs. DCIS are not prognostic for risk of subsequent breast carcinoma.

Mesothelin expression in triple negative breast carcinomas correlates significantly with basal-like phenotype, distant metastases and decreased survival.

Mesothelin is a cell surface associated antigen expressed on mesothelial cells and in some malignant neoplasms. Mesothelin-targeted therapies are in phase I/II clinical trials. The clinicopathologic and prognostic significance of mesothelin expression in triple negative breast carcinomas (TNBC) has not been fully assessed. We evaluated the expression of mesothelin and of basal markers in tissue microarrays of 226 TNBC and 88 non-TNBC and assessed the clinicopathologic features of mesothelin-expressing breast carcinomas. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of mesothelin expression on the disease-free and overall survival of patients with TNBC. We found that mesothelin expression is significantly more frequent in TNBC than in non-TNBC (36% vs 16%, respectively; p = 0.0006), and is significantly correlated with immunoreactivity for basal keratins, but not for EGFR. Mesothelin-positive and mesothelin-negative TNBC were not significantly different by patients' race, tumor size, histologic grade, tumor subtype, lymphovascular invasion and lymph node metastases. Patients with mesothelin-positive TNBC were older than patients with mesothelin-negative TNBC, developed more distant metastases with a shorter interval, and had significantly lower overall and disease-free survival. Based on our results, patients with mesothelin-positive TNBC could benefit from mesothelin-targeted therapies.