Search

Six impalpable mucocoele-like lesions of the breast were detected by mammographic screening of 16000 women over a 15-month period in the Avon (Bristol) Breast Screening Programme as a result of suspicious clustered microcalcifications. The clusters measured between 5 mm and 50 mm. Five contained a small cluster between 5 mm and 15 mm, but one exhibited bizarre calcifications and soft-tissue densities over an area of 50 mm; two adjacent clusters displayed a crescentic (‘tea-cup’) morphology in some of the individual microcalcifications. Their mammographic appearances were pleomorphic. In this period calcified mucocoele-like lesions were detected both in a cohort of approximately 4500 women aged 50–52 years called for prevalent-round screening, and 11500 women involved in incident-round screening. However, not all mucocoele-like lesions are associated with mammographic microcalcification, and not all mucocoele-like lesions detected by microcalcification are associated with high-risk or frankly neoplastic lesions.

The aim of the scheme was to determine consistency of histopathological reporting in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme. This external quality assessment scheme involved 51 sets of 12 slides which were circulated to 186–251 pathologists at intervals of 6 months for 3 years. Participants recorded their diagnoses on standard reporting forms, which were submitted to the U.K. National Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit for analysis. A high level of consistency was achieved in diagnosing major categories of breast disease including invasive carcinoma and the important borderline lesions, radial scar and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the latter exceeding a national target set prior to the onset of the scheme. Atypical hyperplasia (AH) was reported with much less consistency although, where it was the majority opinion, over 86% of diagnoses were of benign disorders and only 14% were of DCIS. Inconsistency was encountered in subtyping and measuring DCIS, the former apparently due to current uncertainties about classification and the latter to poor circumscription, variation in size in different sections and merging with zones of AH. Reporting prognostic features of invasive carcinomas was variable. Measurement of size was achieved with adequate consistency except in a small number of very poorly circumscribed tumours. Grading and subtyping were inconsistent although the latter was not specifically tested and will be the subject of future study. Members of the National Coordinating Group achieved greater uniformity than the remainder of the participants in all diagnostic categories, but both groups experienced similar types of problem. Our findings suggest that participation in the scheme improves diagnostic consistency. In conclusion, consistency in diagnosing invasive carcinoma and radial scar is excellent, and good in DCIS, but improvements are desirable in diagnosing atypical hyperplasia, classifying DCIS and reporting certain prognostic features of invasive rumours. Such improvements will require further research, the development of improved diagnostic criteria and the dissemination of clearer guidelines.

A distinctive lymphadenopathy in nine cats, four of which were of the Longhair breed, was characterized by capillary vasoproliferation and lymphoid atrophy. It occurred in the cervical or inguinal regions. The animals were, apart from local manifestations, healthy at the time and remained so subsequently. In the absence of any clinical or morphological evidence for viral, neoplastic or developmental aetiologies, we postulate an ischaemic pathogenesis for the lesions which may be related to human "vascular transformation of lymph node sinuses". The lesions appear to be by no means a rare cause of non-neoplastic lymphadenopathy in domestic cats, since they constituted over 5 per cent of surgical biopsies of cat lymph nodes seen in the past 5 years. The lesions merit wider recognition and investigation.

Peritoneal disease, apart from the post-operative variety, is rare, but three female patients, who presented with abdominal symptoms and in whom an unusual peritoneal lesion was found at operation, had one factor common to their medical histories—namely, previous treatment with the β-adrenergic-blocking drug practolol. The main finding at laparotomy was a pattern of massive peritoneal adhesions, but one patient had no history of abdominal surgery, and the findings at laparotomy were unusual. Other possible causes of this sclerosing peritonitis can be excluded, and the possible involvement of practolol in these cases is supported by the identification, via the Committee on Safety of Medicines, of four similar cases.