Difference between revisions of "Invasive breast cancer"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Grading breast cancer: pmid) |
(→Breast IHC: format) |
||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
==Breast IHC== | ==Breast IHC== | ||
*DCIS vs LCIS:<ref>{{cite journal |author=Yeh IT, Mies C |title=Application of immunohistochemistry to breast lesions |journal=Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. |volume=132 |issue=3 |pages=349-58 |year=2008 |month=March |pmid=18318578 |doi= |url=http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0003-9985&volume=132&page=349}}</ref> | *DCIS vs LCIS:<ref>{{cite journal |author=Yeh IT, Mies C |title=Application of immunohistochemistry to breast lesions |journal=Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. |volume=132 |issue=3 |pages=349-58 |year=2008 |month=March |pmid=18318578 |doi= |url=http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0003-9985&volume=132&page=349}}</ref> | ||
**E-cadherin (+ve DCIS, -ve LCIS) | **E-cadherin (+ve DCIS, -ve LCIS). | ||
**antibody 34betaE12 (+ve perinuclear LCIS, -ve DCIS) | **antibody 34betaE12 (+ve perinuclear LCIS, -ve DCIS). | ||
**CAM5.2 (peripheral stain = DCIS, perinuclear stain = LCIS) | **CAM5.2 (peripheral stain = DCIS, perinuclear stain = LCIS). | ||
***CAM5.2 is against CK8 | ***CAM5.2 is against CK8. | ||
** | **Beta-catenin (-LCIS, +DCIS). | ||
*D2-40<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ordóñez NG |title=Podoplanin: a novel diagnostic immunohistochemical marker |journal=Adv Anat Pathol |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=83-8 |year=2006 |month=March |pmid=16670463 |doi=10.1097/01.pap.0000213007.48479.94 |url=}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Kahn HJ, Marks A |title=A new monoclonal antibody, D2-40, for detection of lymphatic invasion in primary tumors |journal=Lab. Invest. |volume=82 |issue=9 |pages=1255-7 |year=2002 |month=September |pmid=12218087 |doi= |url=}}</ref> | *D2-40:<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ordóñez NG |title=Podoplanin: a novel diagnostic immunohistochemical marker |journal=Adv Anat Pathol |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=83-8 |year=2006 |month=March |pmid=16670463 |doi=10.1097/01.pap.0000213007.48479.94 |url=}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Kahn HJ, Marks A |title=A new monoclonal antibody, D2-40, for detection of lymphatic invasion in primary tumors |journal=Lab. Invest. |volume=82 |issue=9 |pages=1255-7 |year=2002 |month=September |pmid=12218087 |doi= |url=}}</ref> | ||
** | **Monoclonal antibody to podoplanin. | ||
** | **Useful to assess lymphovascular invasion. | ||
*ADH and DCIS<ref>Lester P.122.</ref> | *ADH and DCIS:<ref>Lester P.122.</ref> | ||
**E-cadherin. | **E-cadherin. | ||
***Present in most epithelial cells. | ***Present in most epithelial cells. |
Revision as of 19:59, 8 July 2010
The article deals with invasive breast cancer and the evaluation of hormone receptor & HER2 status. Non-invasive breast cancer is dealt with in non-invasive breast cancer.
Types of invasive breast cancer
- Ductal also known as no specific type (NST) - 79%, ???includes DCIS???
- Lobular 10%,
- Cribriform (tubular) 6%,
- Mucinous (colloid) 2%,
- Medullary 2%,
- Papillary 1%,
- Metaplastic <1%
Ref.: [1]
Standard IHC work-up
Overview
- Immunostaining of any sentinel lymph nodes - to look for isolated tumour cells and small lymph node mets.
- Sunnybrook uses CAM5.2.
- ER (estrogen receptor).
- Positive in most breast cancers; +ve in ~75-80%.[2]
- PR (progesterone receptor).
- Positive in most breast cancers; +ve in ~65-70%.[3]
- HER2/neu.
- Usually negative; -ve in 70-80%.[4]
- Positivity association with a worse prognosis.
ER & PR scoring[5]
- Give a percentage, i.e. 0-100%.
- Important cut points: 1% and 10%.
- 0% = negative - not treated.
- <10% = low positivity - treated.
- Important cut points: 1% and 10%.
Notes:
- Normal breast epithelial cells have a patchy staining for ER and PR.
- Evaluated on the invasive component.
HER2 scoring[6]
Score | Staining intensity | Cells stained (%) | Membrane staining | Management | Percentage of cases |
0 | nil | <10% | incomplete | No HER2 blocker | ~60% |
1+ | minimum | >10% | incomplete | No HER2 blocker | ~10% |
2+ | weak | >10% | complete | Needs SISH or FISH | ~10% |
3+ | strong | >10% | complete | HER2 blocker | ~20% |
Notes:
- Normal breast epithelial cells do not stain with HER2.
- Evaluated on the invasive component.
- SISH = silver in situ hybridization.
- FISH = fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Clinical
- ER & PR status determine whether a patient will get tamoxifen or other estrogen receptor modulators, such as raloxifene (Evista).
- HER2 status determines whether patient will get traztuzumab (Herceptin) or other HER2/neu modulators.
Characteristics of the subtypes
Ductal
AKA "NST" = No Specific Type.
Micro.
- Cohesive cells - forming ducts or in sheets.
- Nuclear pleomorphism.
Clinical
- Typically: ER+, PR+, HER2-.
Lobular
- "Single file" - cell line-up in a row.
- Cell should not be cohesive -- lymphoma should briefly come to mind.
- primary lymphoma of the breast exists... but it is extremely rare.
- Cell should not be cohesive -- lymphoma should briefly come to mind.
- NO gland formation.
- If it forms glands... it is more likely NST.
- May have signet ring morphology.
- NO desmoplastic reaction, i.e. the stroma surrounding the tumour cells should look benign and undisturbed.
Note:
- commonly have low grade nuclear features
Subclassification:
- Classic lobular carcinoma.
- Low nuclear grade - NO significant variation of nucleus size.
- Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma.
- Significant nuclear atypia.
Note: Some pathologist grade lobular carcinoma like other types and avoid the term "pleomorphic lobular carcinoma."[7]
Medullary carcinoma
- Some pathologists don't believe this exists.
Epidemiology:
- Thought to have a better prognosis that no special type (NST).
- Association with BRCA1 mutations.
Histol.
- Lesion has well-circumscribed border.
- Syncytial growth pattern = clumps of cells with poorly defined cell borders.
- Lymphocytic infiltrate.
- High nuclear grade (as per Nottingham grading system).
- No tubule formation.
Tubular
Epidemiology
- Typically excellent prognosis.
- Hormone receptors commonly present.
Microscopic
- Well-formed tubules;
- Myoepithelial cells absent,
- +/- Cribriform spaces,
- Apocrine snouts typical,
- +/- Calcification,
- Angled ducts common: "prows" - important feature (low power),
- Looks benign to the uninitated -- IMPORTANT.
ASIDE: prow = front of a ship.
DDx:
Grading breast cancer
Most common system: Nottingham (aka Scarff-Bloom-Richardson) which is based on:
- Nuclear grade.
- Small, regular (1.5-2x RBC dia.) = 1.
- Moderated variability = 2.
- Marked variation (>2.5x RBC dia.) = 3.
- Tubule formation.
- Majority of tumour - tubules >75% = 1.
- Moderate - 10% to 75% = 2.
- Minimal <10% = 3.
- Mitotic rate.
- 0-5 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm^2 --or-- 0.0152 mm^2 * 10) = 1.
- 6-10 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm^2) = 2.
- >11 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm^2) = 3.
Mnemonic: TMN = tubule formation, mitotic rate, nuclear grade.
Notes:
- Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.[11] They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.[12]
Note about mitosis counting
- One MUST adjust for the size of the field of view.
- Most of the Resident scopes have an eye piece diameter of 22 mm. Therefore, the field diameter at 40 X is approximately 22 mm / 40 X ~= 0.55 mm and the field of view is pi/4*(0.55 mm)^2 = 0.2376 mm^2.
- As someone that studied engineering, I have the impression many pathologists have difficulty with the concept of sampling when mathematics is involved. Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm^2, is NOT the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm^2. It surprises me that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do not standardize the sampling area.
Calculating Nottingham score
- Grade I = 3-5 points.
- Grade II = 6-7 points.
- Grade III = 8-9 points.
Notes:
- I've found most tumours are grade II.
- The mitotic score is usually 1/3.
- The nuclear score is rarely 1/3 -- even in the tubular subtype.[13]
Staging breast cancer
Definitions:[14]
- Isolated tumour cells: <=0.2 mm and <200 cells.
- Micrometastasis: <=0.2 cm and ( >0.2 mm or >=200 cells ).
Tumour:[15]
- pT1: <= 2 cm
- pT2: < 2 cm and <= 5 cm
- pT3: > 5 cm.
- pT4: chest wall or skin involvement.
Lymph nodes:[16]
- pN0: nil.
- pN0(i+): <=0.2 mm and <200 cells.
- pN1: 1-3 axillary LNs or internal mammary LNs.
- pN1mi: <=0.2 cm and ( >0.2 mm or >=200 cells ).
- pN1a.
- pN1b.
- PN1c.
- pN2 4-9 positive LNs; internal mammary LNs or axillary LNs.
- pN3.
Breast IHC
- DCIS vs LCIS:[17]
- E-cadherin (+ve DCIS, -ve LCIS).
- antibody 34betaE12 (+ve perinuclear LCIS, -ve DCIS).
- CAM5.2 (peripheral stain = DCIS, perinuclear stain = LCIS).
- CAM5.2 is against CK8.
- Beta-catenin (-LCIS, +DCIS).
- ADH and DCIS:[20]
- E-cadherin.
- Present in most epithelial cells.
- Lost in LCIS & invasive lobular carcinoma.
- SMMHC (smooth muscle cell myosin heavy chain).
- Marks myoepithelial cells.
- E-cadherin.
Paget's disease
General
- Cells in the epithelium, i.e. skin, that look like they don't belong.
- Associated with underlying breast carcinoma.[21]
Note:
- Extra-mammary Paget's disease is not assoc. with malignancy.
Microscopic
Features:[21]
- Epitheliod morphology (round/ovoid).
- Cells nested or single.
- Clear/pale cytoplasm key feature - may also be eosinophilic.
- Large nucleoli.
Images:
DDx
- Benign Toker cell hyperplasia.
- Malignant melanoma.
- Bowen disease.
- Nipple duct adenoma (clinical DDx).
IHC
Panel:[21]
- S-100 -ve, HMB-45 -ve (both typically +ve in melanoma).
- CK7 +ve
- CEA +ve (-ve in Bowen's disease, -ve in Toker cells).
Additional:
- HER2/neu - usually +ve.
- CK5/6 -ve.[22]
- Usu. +ve in squamous cell carcinoma.
Familial breast cancer
BRCA1 vs. BRCA2:[23]
- BRCA1:
- Younger.
- Ovarian cancer.
- Worse types of breast cancer (e.g. triple negative breast cancer: PR-, ER-, HER2/neu-).
- BRCA2:
- Older.
- Like sporatic.
- Male breast cancer.
- BOTH associated with increased risk of:
Sentinel lymph node biopsy
- CAM5.2 (LMWK) - to look for isolated tumour cells and small lymph node metstases.
See also
References
- ↑ PBoD NEED PAGE No.
- ↑ Lester. 2nd Ed. PP.241-2.
- ↑ Lester. 2nd Ed. PP.241-2.
- ↑ Lester. 2nd Ed. PP.241-2.
- ↑ Lester. 2nd Ed. PP.241-2.
- ↑ Lester. 2nd Ed. PP.241-2.
- ↑ MUA. Jan 22, 2009.
- ↑ Cotran, Ramzi S.; Kumar, Vinay; Fausto, Nelson; Nelso Fausto; Robbins, Stanley L.; Abbas, Abul K. (2005). Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease (7th ed.). St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Saunders. pp. 1146. ISBN 0-7216-0187-1.
- ↑ URL: http://www.bweems.com/nsj3mp2.jpg.
- ↑ URL: http://surgpathcriteria.stanford.edu/breast/tubularcabr/.
- ↑ Elston CW, Ellis IO (September 2002). "Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410". Histopathology 41 (3A): 151–2, discussion 152–3. PMID 12405945.
- ↑ Elston CW, Ellis IO (November 1991). "Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up". Histopathology 19 (5): 403–10. PMID 1757079.
- ↑ MUA. 20 January 2009.
- ↑ URL: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-staging. Accessed on: 8 July 2010.
- ↑ URL: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-staging. Accessed on: 8 July 2010.
- ↑ URL: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-staging. Accessed on: 8 July 2010.
- ↑ Yeh IT, Mies C (March 2008). "Application of immunohistochemistry to breast lesions". Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 132 (3): 349-58. PMID 18318578. http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0003-9985&volume=132&page=349.
- ↑ Ordóñez NG (March 2006). "Podoplanin: a novel diagnostic immunohistochemical marker". Adv Anat Pathol 13 (2): 83-8. doi:10.1097/01.pap.0000213007.48479.94. PMID 16670463.
- ↑ Kahn HJ, Marks A (September 2002). "A new monoclonal antibody, D2-40, for detection of lymphatic invasion in primary tumors". Lab. Invest. 82 (9): 1255-7. PMID 12218087.
- ↑ Lester P.122.
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1101235-diagnosis
- ↑ RS. May 2010.
- ↑ Cotran, Ramzi S.; Kumar, Vinay; Fausto, Nelson; Nelso Fausto; Robbins, Stanley L.; Abbas, Abul K. (2005). Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease (7th ed.). St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Saunders. pp. 1133. ISBN 0-7216-0187-1.