Поражения молочной железы с неопределенным злокачественным потенциалом

В статье рассматривается своеобразная группа заболеваний молочной железы, относящаяся к категории В3 по классификации BI-RADS, – так называемые поражения с неопределенным злокачественным потенциалом. Приводятся основные сведения, касающиеся их биологического поведения и современных тактических подходов к ведению пациенток с подобными изменениями в молочной железе. Рассматривается возможность консервативного ведения, а также минимализация хирургического пособия в случаях показаний к нему – до вакуумной аспирационной биопсии. Помимо этого обсуждается значимость данных заболеваний для последующего развития преинвазивного и инфильтративного рака.

1. Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF): benign breast tumors. 2018.

2. Shaffer K. Can machine learning be used to create a model for improving management of high-risk breast lesions? Radiology 2018;286(3):819–21. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017172648.

3. NHS(2016) NHS breast screening program. Clinical guidelines for breast cancer screening. NHSBSP Publication No. 49, 4th edn, November 2016.

4. Thill M., Liedtke C., Muller V. et al. AGO Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with advanced and metastatic breast cancer: 2018 update. Breast Care (Basel) 2018;13(3):209–15. DOI: 10.1159/000489331.

5. Bahl M., Barzilay R., Yedidia A.B. et al. High-risk breast lesions: a machine learning model for predicting pathological renewal and reducing unnecessary surgical excision. Radiology 2018;286(3):810–18. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170549.

6. Ahn S.K., Han W., Moon H.G. et al. Treatment of benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed by ultrasound needle core biopsy: an assessment system for predicting malignancy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018;44(1):53–8. DOI: 10.1016/j. ejso.2017.10.214.

7. Armes J.E., Galbraith C., Gray J., Taylor K. The outcome of papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed by standard core needle biopsy within a BreastScreen Australia service. Pathology 2017;49(3):267–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2016.12.346.

8. Khan S., Diaz A., Archer K.J. et al. Papillary lesions of the breast: to excise or observe? Breast J 2018;24(3):350–5. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12907.

9. Ko D., Kang E., Park S.Y. et al. The management strategy of benign solitary intraductal papilloma on breast core biopsy. Clin Breast Cancer 2017;17(5):367–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2017.03.016.

10. Niinikoski L., Hukkinen K., Leidenius M.H.K. et al. Breast Lesion Excision System in the diagnosis and treatment of intraductal papillomas: a feasibility study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018;44(1):59–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.10.213.

11. Tran H.T., Mursleen A., Mirpour S. et al. Papillary breast lesions: association with malignancy and upgrade rates on surgical excision. Am Surg 2017;83(11):1294–7.

12. Yang Y., Fan Z., Liu Y. et al. Is surgical excision necessary in breast papillomas 10 mm or smaller at core biopsy. Oncol Res Treat 2018;41(1–2):29–34. DOI: 10.1159/000481097.

13. Kim H., Kim E.K., Son E.J. et al. A phyllodes tumor is diagnosed after ultrasound vacuum excision: should it be followed by surgical excision? Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41(3):741–7. DOI: 10.1016/j. ultrasmedbio.2014.11.004.

14. Sevinc A.I., Aksoy S.O., Guray Durak M., Balci P. Is the extent of surgical resection important in patient outcome in benign and borderline phyllodes tumors of the breast? Turk J Med Sci 2018;48(1):28–33. DOI: 10.3906/sag-1704-47.

15. Shaaban M., Barthelmes L. Benign phyllodes tumours of the breast: (over) treatment of margins: a literature review. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017;43(7): 1186–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.019.

16. Ferreira A.I., Borges S., Sousa A. et al. Radiation scar of the breast: can surgery be avoided? Eur J Surg Oncol 2017;43(7):1265–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.01.238.

17. Park Wee, Kim E.K., Kim M.J. et al. Mammographic occult asymptomatic radiation scars/complex sclerosing lesions on ultrasound-guided needle core biopsy: follow-up may be recommended. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016;42(10):2367–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.004.

18. Nassar A., Conners A.L., Celik B. et al. Radiation scars/complex sclerosing lesions: clinical and pathological correlation study from a single institution. Anne Diagn Patol 2015;19(1):24–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.12.003.

19. Kim E.M., Hankins A., Cassity J. et al. Diagnosis of isolated radial scar with core biopsy: is surgical excision necessary? SpringerPlus 2016;5:398. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-1993-z.

20. Leong R.I., Koli M.K., Zeizafun N. et al. Radiation scar in percutaneous breast biopsy that does not require surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2016;223(5):712–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.08.003.

21. Li Z., Ranade A., Zhao C. Abnormal results of subsequent surgical excision of a radial scar on a breast nucleus needle biopsy. Hum Patol 2016;48:76–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2015.06.028.

22. Kalife E.T., Lourenco A.P., Baird G.L., Wang Y. Clinical and radiographic followup examination for biopsy diagnosis of radiation scar/radiation sclerosing lesion without other atypias. Breast J 2016;22(6):637–44. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12645.

23. Berry J.S., Trappey A.F., Vreeland T.J. et al. Analysis of clinical and pathologic factors of pure, flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy to aid in the decision of excision or observation. J Cancer 2016;7(1):1–6. DOI: 10.7150/jca.12781.

24. Rudin A.V., Hoskin T.L., Fahy A. et al. Flat epithelial atypia on core biopsy and upgrade to cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24(12):3549–58. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-6059-0.

25. Acott A.A., Mancino A.T. Flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy, must we surgically excise? Am J Surg 2016;212(6):1211–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.09.019.

26. Chan P.M.Y., Chotai N., Lai E.S. et al. Majority of flat epithelial atypia diagnosed on biopsy do not require surgical excision. Breast 2018;37:13–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.10.005.

27. McCroskey Z., Sneige N., Herman C.R. et al. Flat epithelial atypia in directional vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: surgical excision may not be necessary. Mod Pathol 2018;31(7):1097–106. DOI: 10.1038/s41379-018-0035-5.

28. Samples L.S., Rendi M.H., Frederick P.D. et al. Surgical implications and variability in the use of the flat epithelial atypia diagnosis on breast biopsy specimens. Breast 2017;34:34–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.04.004.

29. Schiaffino S., Gristina L., Villa A. et al. Flat epithelial atypia: conservative management of patients without residual microcalcifications post-vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Br J Radiol 2018;91(1081):20170484. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170484.

30. Hartmann L.C. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;372:78–89.

31. Co M., Kwong A., Shek T. Factors affecting the under-diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsies: a 10-year retrospective study and review of the literature. Int J Surg(Lond Engl) 2018;49:27–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.11.005.

32. Donaldson A.R., McCarthy C., Goraya S. et al. Breast cancer risk associated with atypical hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ initially diagnosed on core-needle biopsy. Cancer 2018;124(3):459–65. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31061.

33. Menes T.S., Kerlikowske K., Lange J. et al. Subsequent breast cancer risk following diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia on needle biopsy. JAMA Oncol 2017;3(1):36–41. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3022.

34. Pena A., Shah S.S., Fazzio R.T. et al. Multivariate model to identify women at low risk of cancer upgrade after a core needle biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;164(2):295–304. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4253-1.

35. Latronico A., Nicosia L., Faggian A. et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: our experience in the management and long term clinical follow-up in 71 patients. Breast 2018;37:1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.10.003.

36. Menen R.S., Ganesan N., Bevers T. et al. Long-Term safety of observation in selected women following core biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24(1):70–6. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5512-9.

37. Muller K.E., Roberts E., Zhao L., Jorns J.M. Isolated atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed on breast biopsy: low upgrade rate on subsequent excision with longterm follow-up. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2018;142(3):391–5. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0155-OA.

38. Szynglarewicz B., Kasprzak P., Halon A., Matkowski R. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast – correlation between minimally invasive biopsy and final pathology. Archiv Med Sci 2017;13(3):617–23. DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2016.61815.

39. Mao K., Yang Y., Wu W. et al. Risk of developing second breast cancer after lobular carcinoma in situ depending on hormone receptor status. PloS One 2017;12(5):e0176417. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176417.

40. Schmidt H., Arditi B., Wooster M. et al. Observation versus excision of lobular neoplasia on a breast medullary needle biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018;168(3):649–54. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4629-2.

41. Sen L.Q., Berg W.A., Hooley R.J. et al. A basic breast biopsy showing lobular carcinoma in situ should be excised and observation for atypical lobular hyperplasia is reasonable. AJR Am J X-ray 2016;207(5):1132–45. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.15425.

42. Fasola C.E., Chen J.J., Jensen K.C. et al. Characteristics and clinical outcomes of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast J 2018;24(1):66–9. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12843.

43. Flanagan M.R., Randy M.H., Calhounke Anderson B.O., Javid S. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ: X-ray pathological features and clinical treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22(13):4263–9. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4552-x.

44. Sullivan M.E., Khan S.A., Sullu Y. et al. Variants of lobular carcinoma in situ in the breast nucleus: potential for misdiagnosis, update rate with surgical excision, and practical implications. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134(7):1024–8. DOI: 10.1043/2009-0300-OA.1.