BACKGROUND: Mammographic density is the third largest risk factor for ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer. However, the question of whether risk-mediating precursor histological changes, such as columnar cell lesions (CCLs), can be found in dense but non-malignant breast tissues has not been systematically addressed. We hypothesized that CCLs may be related to breast composition, in particular breast density, in non-tumour containing breast tissue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined randomly selected tissue samples obtained by bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy from a forensic autopsy series, where tissue composition was assessed, and in which there had been no selection of subjects or histological specimens for breast disease. We reviewed H&E slides for the presence of atypical and non-atypical CCLs and correlated with histological features measured using quantitative microscopy. RESULTS: CCLs were seen in 40 out of 236 cases (17%). The presence of CCLs was found to be associated with several measures of breast tissue composition, including radiographic density: high Faxitron Wolfe Density (P = 0.037), high density estimated by percentage non-adipose tissue area (P = 0.037), high percentage collagen (P = 9.2E-05) and high percentage glandular area (P = 2E-05). DCIS was identified in two atypical CCL cases. The extent of CCL was not associated with any of the examined variables. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to report a possible association between CCLs and breast tissue composition, including mammographic density. Our data suggest that prospective elucidation of the strength and nature of the clinicopathological correlation may lead to an enhanced understanding of mammographic density and evidence based management strategies.
BACKGROUND: Mammographic density is the third largest risk factor for ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer. However, the question of whether risk-mediating precursor histological changes, such as columnar cell lesions (CCLs), can be found in dense but non-malignant breast tissues has not been systematically addressed. We hypothesized that CCLs may be related to breast composition, in particular breast density, in non-tumour containing breast tissue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined randomly selected tissue samples obtained by bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy from a forensic autopsy series, where tissue composition was assessed, and in which there had been no selection of subjects or histological specimens for breast disease. We reviewed H&E slides for the presence of atypical and non-atypical CCLs and correlated with histological features measured using quantitative microscopy. RESULTS: CCLs were seen in 40 out of 236 cases (17%). The presence of CCLs was found to be associated with several measures of breast tissue composition, including radiographic density: high Faxitron Wolfe Density (P = 0.037), high density estimated by percentage non-adipose tissue area (P = 0.037), high percentage collagen (P = 9.2E-05) and high percentage glandular area (P = 2E-05). DCIS was identified in two atypical CCL cases. The extent of CCL was not associated with any of the examined variables. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to report a possible association between CCLs and breast tissue composition, including mammographic density. Our data suggest that prospective elucidation of the strength and nature of the clinicopathological correlation may lead to an enhanced understanding of mammographic density and evidence based management strategies.
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Michael Bronskill; Martin J Yaffe; Neb Duric; Salomon Minkin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Neb Duric; Norman Boyd; Peter Littrup; Mark Sak; Lukasz Myc; Cuiping Li; Erik West; Sal Minkin; Lisa Martin; Martin Yaffe; Steven Schmidt; Muhammad Faiz; Jason Shen; Olga Melnichouk; Qing Li; Teri Albrecht Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jason J Northey; Alexander S Barrett; Irene Acerbi; Mary-Kate Hayward; Stephanie Talamantes; Ivory S Dean; Janna K Mouw; Suzanne M Ponik; Jonathon N Lakins; Po-Jui Huang; Junmin Wu; Quanming Shi; Susan Samson; Patricia J Keely; Rita A Mukhtar; Jan T Liphardt; John A Shepherd; E Shelley Hwang; Yunn-Yi Chen; Kirk C Hansen; Laurie E Littlepage; Valerie M Weaver Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; John H Hipwell; Carol Record; Louise S Wilkinson; Sue M Moss; David J Hawkes; Isabel dos-Santos-Silva Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Bhavika K Patel; Kay Pepin; Kathy R Brandt; Gina L Mazza; Barbara A Pockaj; Jun Chen; Yuxiang Zhou; Donald W Northfelt; Karen Anderson; Juliana M Kling; Celine M Vachon; Kristin R Swanson; Mehdi Nikkhah; Richard Ehman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Karthik Ghosh; Robert A Vierkant; Ryan D Frank; Stacey Winham; Daniel W Visscher; Vernon S Pankratz; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen Brandt; Mark E Sherman; Derek C Radisky; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Celine M Vachon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 6.466