Search

Classic diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma has imaging features divergent from the breast cancers originating from the terminal ductal lobular units and from the major lactiferous ducts. Although the term "invasive lobular carcinoma" implies a site of origin within the breast lobular epithelium, we were unable to find evidence supporting this assumption. Exceptional excess of fibrous connective tissue and the unique cell architecture combined with the aberrant features at breast imaging suggest that this breast malignancy has not originated from cells lining the breast ducts and lobules. The only remaining relevant component of the fibroglandular tissue is the mesenchyme. The cells freshly isolated and cultured from diffusely infiltrating lobular carcinoma cases contained epithelial–mesenchymal hybrid cells with both epithelial and mesenchymal properties. The radiologic and histopathologic features of the tumours and expression of the mesenchymal stem cell positive markers CD73, CD90, and CD105 all suggest development in the direction of mesenchymal transition. These hybrid cells have tumour-initiating potential and have been shown to have poor prognosis and resistance to therapy targeted for malignancies of breast epithelial origin. Our work emphasizes the need for new approaches to the diagnosis and therapy of this highly fatal breast cancer subtype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Imaging biomarkers distinguish two subgroups of "classic invasive lobular carcinoma" of the breast. • One is several centimetres in extent, while the other is localized to the TDLUs. • This article describes the "classic invasive lobular carcinoma" restricted to the TDLU. • The two subgroups have vastly different long-term outcomes. • Describing these two separate entities using a single diagnostic term can lead to confusion. To describe in detail the special features of a previously unappreciated "classic invasive lobular carcinoma" which is confined to the terminal ductal lobular units (TDLUs) and differs considerably from the extensive classic invasive lobular carcinoma, and to suggest specific terminology. All invasive breast cancer cases without associated microcalcifications diagnosed in our Institution with the histopathologic diagnosis of classic invasive lobular carcinoma during the years 1996–2019 (n = 560) formed the basis of this study. The cases were prospectively classified according to their imaging biomarkers (mammographic features) and followed up to Dec 31, 2021, to determine long-term patient outcome. An additional 2600 invasive breast cancer cases (diagnosed other than invasive lobular carcinoma) without associated microcalcifications served as a reference group. Detailed histopathologic analysis used large format (10x8 cm) thin section technique and staining methods including hematoxylin-eosin (H&E), E-cadherin, cytokeratin CK 5/6, a transmembrane glycoprotein (CD44) and anti-actin or anti-smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. The imaging biomarkers differentiated two separate disease subgroups, having the same histopathologic diagnosis, classic invasive lobular carcinoma. One of these has the imaging biomarker of extensive architectural distortion with no central tumour mass, occupies the extralobular mesenchyme and has a long-term survival of 56%. The other subgroup forms stellate or circular non-calcified tumour masses usually smaller than 20 mm, which appear to arise in the intralobular mesenchyme, and has a significantly better long-term survival of 84%. There is a striking difference between the subgross histopathology and the mammographic appearance (imaging biomarkers) of two breast malignancies having the same histopathologic diagnosis, "classic invasive lobular carcinoma". The large difference in the long-term outcome of these two tumour types is even more striking. Using the same specific term, "classic invasive lobular carcinoma", to describe these two separate entities can adversely affect management decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The imaging biomarkers consist primarily of the mammographic appearance of the various breast cancer subtypes. • The molecular biomarkers were good predictors of the outcome for unifocal acinar adenocarcinoma of the breast (AAB). • In diffuse breast cancers and in multifocal AAB cases the molecular biomarkers misleadingly indicated favourable prognosis. • In contrast, the imaging biomarkers were highly reliable predictors of the long-term patient outcome, including the multifocal AAB and diffuse breast cancer. • The imaging biomarkers should be integrated into the diagnostic workup to provide more precise breast cancer management. The development and refinement of breast imaging modalities offer a wealth of diagnostic information such as imaging biomarkers, which are primarily the mammographic appearance of the various breast cancer subtypes. These are readily available preoperatively at the time of diagnosis and can enhance the prognostic value of currently used molecular biomarkers. In this study, we investigated the relative utility of the molecular and imaging biomarkers, both jointly and independently, when predicting long-term patient outcome according to the site of tumour origin. We evaluated the association of imaging biomarkers and conventional molecular biomarkers, (ER, PR, HER-2, Ki67), separately and combined, with long-term patient outcome in all breast cancer cases having complete data on both imaging and molecular biomarkers (n = 2236) diagnosed in our Institute during the period 2008–2019. Large format histopathology technique was used to document intra - and inter tumoural heterogeneity and select the appropriate foci for evaluating molecular biomarkers. The breast cancer imaging biomarkers were strongly predictive of long-term patient outcome. The molecular biomarkers were predictive of outcome only for unifocal acinar adenocarcinoma of the breast (AAB), but less reliable in the multifocal AAB cases due to variability of molecular biomarkers in the individual tumour foci. In breast cancer of mesenchymal origin (BCMO), conventionally termed classic invasive lobular carcinoma, and in cancers originating from the major lactiferous ducts (ductal adenocarcinoma of the breast, DAB), the molecular biomarkers misleadingly indicated favourable prognosis, whereas the imaging biomarkers in BCMO and DAB reliably indicated the high risk of breast cancer death. Among the 2236 breast cancer cases, BCMO and DAB comprised 21% of the breast cancer cases, but accounted for 45% of the breast cancer deaths. Integration of imaging biomarkers into the diagnostic workup of breast cancer yields a more precise, comprehensive and prognostically accurate diagnostic report. This is particularly necessary in multifocal AAB cases having inter tumoural heterogeneity, in diffuse carcinomas (DAB and BCMO), and in cases with combined DAB and AAB. In such cases, the imaging biomarkers should be prioritised over molecular biomarkers in planning treatment because the latter fail to predict the severity of the disease. In combination with the use of the large section histopathology technique, imaging biomarkers help alleviate some of the current problems in breast cancer management, such as over- and under-assessment of disease extent, which carry the risk of overtreatment and undertreatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physicians treating breast cancer patients often wonder why this dreaded disease is still fatal in some women despite our best diagnostic and therapeutic efforts. Our own studies on prospectively documented cases spanning several decades have given us new insights for approaching this problem. By using imaging biomarkers to classify breast cancer subtypes according to their apparent site of origin, we found that a majority of breast cancer deaths (71%) occur in a minority of breast cancers (45%). Breast cancer deaths are significantly more likely to occur in women with multifocal acinar adenocarcinoma of the breast, AAB (13.1%), diffusely invasive breast cancers of ductal origin, DAB (24 %) and breast malignancies of mesenchymal hybrid cell origin, BCMO (33.7%) compared with women having unifocal invasive breast cancers (6.1%). Preventing more of these fatal events will require a re-evaluation of the current imperfect histopathologic terminology of breast cancer with special attention to the diffuse breast cancer subtypes, intensification of multimodality imaging and multidisciplinary management, as well as application of image guided large format histopathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Image assisted large format histopathology is a key component in patient management planning. • Surgical margin determination is superior using the large format histopathology technique. • Immunohistochemical and molecular biomarkers cannot compensate for the limitations of small section histopathology. • Large format histopathology technique is less time-consuming and provides superior care at a lower cost. • Histopathology technique and practice need to be reevaluated and modernized. Breast radiologists examine the entire breast in full-size images, while breast pathologists examine small tissue samples at high magnification. The diagnostic information from these complementary imaging approaches can be difficult to integrate for a more clinically relevant evaluation of malignancies spanning several centimetres. We have explored the advantages and disadvantages of imaging guided larger section pathology techniques compared with the standard 2 × 2.5 cm. small section technique. We compared the ability of conventional small section histopathology with larger section histopathology techniques to examine surgical resection margins and full disease extent. We evaluated the pre-surgical imaging workup and use of microfocus magnification radiography of sliced surgical specimens in the histopathologic evaluation of disease extent and status of surgical margins. Image assisted large section histopathology of excised breast tissue enables comprehensive examination of an approximately tenfold larger contiguous tissue area than is provided by conventional small section technology. Attempting to cover the full area of each consecutive slice of resected tissue is more labour-intensive and expensive with the small section approach and poses challenges in reconstituting three-dimensional tumour architecture after morcellation and sectioning. Restricting histopathologic examination to a limited number of samples provides an incomplete evaluation of surgical margins. A considerably improved documentation of breast cancer and a more reliable assessment of tissue margins is provided by using larger sized histopathology samples to correlate with breast imaging findings. These in turn can enable more appropriate treatment planning, improved surgical performance, fewer recurrences, and better patient outcome. Uncertainty of surgical margin evaluation inherent to the standard small section technique can lead to inappropriate decisions in surgical management and adjunctive therapy. Progress in breast diagnosis and treatment will largely depend on whether histopathology terminology and technique will undergo a revolution similar to the one that has already occurred in breast imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]