Laura C Collins1, Sarah A Aroner2, James L Connolly1, Graham A Colditz3, Stuart J Schnitt1, Rulla M Tamimi4,5. 1. Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Institute of Public Health, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) on a benign breast biopsy specimen are at increased risk for the development of breast cancer. However, the relation between the type and extent of AH (atypical ductal hyperplasia [ADH] vs atypical lobular hyperplasia [ALH]) and the magnitude of the breast cancer risk is not well defined. METHODS: A nested case-control study of benign breast disease and breast cancer risk was conducted. Women with breast cancer and prior benign breast biopsy findings (488 cases) were matched to women with prior benign breast biopsy findings who were free from breast cancer (1907 controls). Benign breast biopsy slides were reviewed and categorized as nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, or AH (ADH or ALH). The number of foci of AH was also recorded. RESULTS: Among women with ADH, the interrelation between the extent of atypia and breast cancer risk was not significant (odds ratio [OR] for 1 or 2 foci, 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-5.6; OR for ≥3 foci, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = .41). Similarly, although the risk with ALH was higher for those with ≥3 foci than for those with <3 foci, the difference was not statistically significant (OR for 1 or 2 foci, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.7-10.0; OR for ≥3 foci, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.5-14.2; P = .19). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that the extent of ADH or ALH does not significantly contribute to breast cancer risk. The lack of a significant dose-response relation between the extent and type of atypia and breast cancer risk suggests that it would be premature to use the extent of atypia to influence management decisions for women with ADH or ALH.
BACKGROUND:Women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) on a benign breast biopsy specimen are at increased risk for the development of breast cancer. However, the relation between the type and extent of AH (atypical ductal hyperplasia [ADH] vs atypical lobular hyperplasia [ALH]) and the magnitude of the breast cancer risk is not well defined. METHODS: A nested case-control study of benign breast disease and breast cancer risk was conducted. Women with breast cancer and prior benign breast biopsy findings (488 cases) were matched to women with prior benign breast biopsy findings who were free from breast cancer (1907 controls). Benign breast biopsy slides were reviewed and categorized as nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, or AH (ADH or ALH). The number of foci of AH was also recorded. RESULTS: Among women with ADH, the interrelation between the extent of atypia and breast cancer risk was not significant (odds ratio [OR] for 1 or 2 foci, 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-5.6; OR for ≥3 foci, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = .41). Similarly, although the risk with ALH was higher for those with ≥3 foci than for those with <3 foci, the difference was not statistically significant (OR for 1 or 2 foci, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.7-10.0; OR for ≥3 foci, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.5-14.2; P = .19). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that the extent of ADH or ALH does not significantly contribute to breast cancer risk. The lack of a significant dose-response relation between the extent and type of atypia and breast cancer risk suggests that it would be premature to use the extent of atypia to influence management decisions for women with ADH or ALH.
Authors: A M Shaaban; J P Sloane; C R West; F R Moore; C Jarvis; E M I Williams; C S Foster Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: M J Stampfer; W C Willett; F E Speizer; D C Dysert; R Lipnick; B Rosner; C H Hennekens Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1984-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lynn C Hartmann; Derek C Radisky; Marlene H Frost; Richard J Santen; Robert A Vierkant; Lorelle L Benetti; Yaman Tarabishy; Karthik Ghosh; Daniel W Visscher; Amy C Degnim Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2014-01-30
Authors: Amy C Degnim; William D Dupont; Derek C Radisky; Robert A Vierkant; Ryan D Frank; Marlene H Frost; Stacey J Winham; Melinda E Sanders; Jeffrey R Smith; David L Page; Tanya L Hoskin; Celine M Vachon; Karthik Ghosh; Tina J Hieken; Lori A Denison; Jodi M Carter; Lynn C Hartmann; Daniel W Visscher Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amy C Degnim; Daniel W Visscher; Derek C Radisky; Marlene H Frost; Robert A Vierkant; Ryan D Frank; Stacey J Winham; Celine M Vachon; William D Dupont; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ellen L Nutter; Julia E Weiss; Jonathan D Marotti; Richard J Barth; M Scottie Eliassen; Martha E Goodrich; Curtis L Petersen; Tracy Onega Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tehillah S Menes; Karla Kerlikowske; Jane Lange; Shabnam Jaffer; Robert Rosenberg; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Rulla M Tamimi; Yujing J Heng; Kevin H Kensler; Emily Z F Liu; Suzanne C Wetstein; Allison M Onken; Christina I Luffman; Gabrielle M Baker; Laura C Collins; Stuart J Schnitt; Vanessa C Bret-Mounet; Mitko Veta; Josien P W Pluim; Ying Liu; Graham A Colditz; A Heather Eliassen; Susan E Hankinson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 4.254