SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3

Benign Proliferative Breast Lesions and Risk of Cancer

Memenin Benign Proliferatif Lezyonları ve Kanser Riski

Serap EREL
Pages
155–167
Publication Date
2010-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Age at diagnosis of BBL, menopausal status, family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative, and time since BBL diagnosis on risk of breast cancer are important for risk evaluation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Benign breast lesions (BBL) includes a wide variety of histologic entities, which have been broadly classified into non-proliferative lesions, proliferative lesions without atypia, and hyperplasia with atypia.
📊
Key Findings & Data:With the increased use of mammography, more benign lesions are being detected, and in order to estimate the risk of breast cancer for specific histologic categories is of great importance to guide clinical management.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Age at diagnosis of BBL, menopausal status, family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative, and time since BBL diagnosis on risk of breast cancer are important for risk evaluation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Proliferatif lezyonlar · mamografi · kanser riski

Abstract

Benign breast lesions (BBL) includes a wide variety of histologic entities, which have been broadly classified into non-proliferative lesions, proliferative lesions without atypia, and hyperplasia with atypia. With the increased use of mammography, more benign lesions are being detected, and in order to estimate the risk of breast cancer for specific histologic categories is of great importance to guide clinical management. Women with proliferative lesions without atypia are at slightly increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, whereas women with proliferative lesions with atypia have a higher risk. The risk is 1.5- 2-fold in women with proliferative lesions without atypia, 4-5-fold in women with proliferative lesions with atypia, and 8-10 fold in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Age at diagnosis of BBL, menopausal status, family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative, and time since BBL diagnosis on risk of breast cancer are important for risk evaluation.

Özet

Benign meme lezyonlarının non-proliferatif lezyonlardan atipili ve atipisiz proliferatif lezyonlara kadar sınıflandırılan geniş histolojik kapsamı vardır. Mamografinin yaygınlaşan kullanımıyla daha çok benign lezyon tespit edilmektedir ve klinik yaklaşıma rehber olması amacıyla özellikli histolojik gruplar için meme kanseri riskinin tam olarak belirlenmesi önem kazanmaktadır. Atipisiz proliferatif meme lezyonları olan kadınlarda invazif kanser gelişmesi riski az miktarda artmıştır, buna rağmen atipili proliferatif lezyonlu kadınlarda risk daha yüksektir. Atipisiz proliferatif lezyonlarda risk 1,5-2 kat, atipili proliferatif lezyonlarda risk 4-5 kat ve duktal karsinoma in situ da 8-10 kat risk mevcuttur. Ayrıca biyopsi anındaki yaş, menopoz durumu, birinci dereceden yakınında meme kanseri hikayesi ve benign meme lezyonu tanısından sonra geçen süre de risk hesaplamalarında önemlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

EREL, S. (2010). Benign Proliferative Breast Lesions and Risk of Cancer. Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3, 155–167. https://ajindex.com/articles/466247

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Foster MC, Helvie MA, Gregory NE, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical lobular hyperplasia at core-needle biopsy: is excisional biopsy necessary? Radiology 2004; 231:813 -9 Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. AJR 1999;172: 1405-7.
  2. Jacobs TW, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies: to excise or not to excise? Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 1095-110
  3. Sklair-Levy M, Sella T, Alweiss T, et al. Incidence and management of complex fibroadenomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 190(1): 214-8.
  4. Tran PV, Lui PC, Yu AM, et al. Atypia in fine needle aspirates of breast lesions. J Clin Pathol 2010;63:585-91
  5. Masood S, Frykberg ER, McLellan GL, et al. Cytologic differentiation between proliferative and nonproliferative breast disease in mammographically guided fine needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol. 1991; 7: 581-90.
  6. Zhao C, Raza A, Martin SE, et al. Breast fine-needle aspiration samples reported as "proliferative breast lesion": clinical utility of the subcategory "proliferative breast lesion with atypia". Cancer Cytopathol. 2009 117(2):137-47.
  7. Tavassoli FA, Hoefler H,Rosai J, et al. Intraductal Proliferative Lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, DevileeP, eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. Pathology & Genetics: Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2003: 63–73. Robbins Basic Pathology, 8th Edition, by V. Kumar, R. Cotran and S. Robbins, Saunders, 2007. Schnitt SJ. Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk: morphology and beyond. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27: 836-41.
  8. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl JMed 2005;353: 229-37.
  9. Marshall LM, Hunter DJ, Connolly JL, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997; 6: 297- 301. JacobsTW, Byrne C, Colditz G, et al. Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:430-36.
  10. Goehring C, Morabia A. Epidemiology of benign breast disease, with special attention to histologic types. Epidemiol Rev 1997;19: 310-27 López-Medina A, Cintora E, Mşgica B, et al. Radial scars diagnosed at stereotactic core- needle biopsy: surgical biopsy findings. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 18