Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of radiological–pathological correlation in diagnosing early breast cancer: the pathologist’s perspective

  • Review and Perspective
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Early breast carcinoma, defined as purely in situ cancer and invasive carcinomas < 15 mm, represents the most frequent category of breast carcinomas in diagnostic routine in a regularly screened population. These tumors are usually detected with mammography screening and are preoperatively characterized with radiological imaging. The role of pathology in preoperative settings is to help understand the subgross morphology and to confirm malignancy in biopsy material. Postoperatively, the pathologist needs to verify the size of the cancer (defined as the largest dimension of the largest invasive focus), the extent of the disease (defined as the area or the volume of the breast tissue containing all the malignant foci), the distribution of the in situ and invasive lesions (as unifocal, multifocal, or diffuse), and intratumoral and intertumoral heterogeneity (in addition to determining margin status, histologic tumor type, hormone receptor status, and other parameters). Despite their small size, early breast carcinomas often exhibit complex morphology as they are multifocal/diffuse in about 60% and extensive (occupying an area ≥ 4 cm) in 40% of the cases. Routine use of large-format histopathology technique is a prerequisite for detailed correlation of the radiologic and histopathologic findings and for the correct assessment of these parameters. Breast pathologists must be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different imaging modalities and have detailed information about the radiological findings before work-up of the operative specimen. Multidisciplinary preoperative and postoperative tumor board meetings are essential in guiding the pathologists and in confirming the radiological findings. Interdisciplinary diagnosis is inevitably becoming the new gold standard in the diagnosis and management of early breast carcinomas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gallager HS (1976) Treatment selection in primary breast cancer. Pathologic considerations. Am J Roentgenol 126:135–138

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nealon TF, Nkongho A, Grossi CE, Ward R, Nealon C, Gillooley JF (1981) Treatment of early cancer of the breast (T1N0M0 and T2N0M0) on the basis of histologic characteristics. Surgery 89:279–289

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hartmann WH (1984) Minimal breast cancer. An update. Cancer 53:681–684 (suppl)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tabár L, Chen HH, Duffy SW et al (2000) A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b and 10–14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study. Lancet 355:429–433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tabár L, Chen HT, Yen MFA et al (2004) Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14 mm invasive carcinoma. Cancer 101:1745–1759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tot T (2010) The origins of early breast carcinoma. Sem Diagn Pathol 27:62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Holland R, Veling SH, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH (1985) Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1–2 breast carcinomas. Cancer 56:979–990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Faverly DRG, Henricks JHCL, Holland R (2001) Breast carcinoma of limited extent. Frequency, radiologic–pathologic characteristics, and surgical margin requirements. Cancer 91:647–659

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tot T (2007) The clinical relevance of the distribution of the lesions in 500 consecutive breast cancer cases documented in large-format histological sections. Cancer 110:2551–2560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tot T (2009) The metastastic capacity of multifocal breast carcinomas: extensive tumors versus tumors of limited extent. Hum Pathol 40:199–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tot T, Gy P, Hofmeyer S, Sollie T, Tarján M, Gere M (2009) The distribution of lesions in 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinomas and its relation to metastatic potential. Virchows Arch 455:109–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tot T (2005) DCIS, cytokeratins and the theory of the sick lobe. Virchows Arch 447:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Agelopoulos K, Buerger H, Brandt B (2008) Allelic imbalance of the egfr gene as key event in breast cancer progression—the concept of committed progenitor cells. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 8:431–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Heaphy CM, Griffith JK, Bisoffi M (2009) Mammary field cancerization: molecular evidence and clinical importance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118(2):229–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Going JJ, Mohun TJ (2006) Human breast duct anatomy, the ‘sick lobe’ hypothesis and intraductal approach to breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 97:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyages J, Jayashinghe UW, Coombs N (2010) Multifocal breast cancer and survival: each focus does matter particularly for larger tumors. Eur J Cancer 46(11):1990–1996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weissenbacher TM, Zschage M, Janni W, Jeschke U, Dimpfl T, Mayr D, Rack B, Schindlbeck C, Friese K, Dian D (2010) Multicentric and multifocal versus unifocal breast cancer: is the tumor-node-metastasis classification justified? Breast Cancer Res Treat 122(1):27–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tot T (2010) Towards a renaissance of subgross breast morphology. Editorial. Eur H Cancer 46(11):1946–1948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fochsini MP, Tot T, Eusebi V (2002) Large section (macrosection) histologic slides. In: Silverstein MJ (ed) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 249–254

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tabár L, Tot T, Dean PB (2005) Breast cancer: the art and science of early detection by mammography: perception, interpretation, histopathologic correlation. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 405–438

    Google Scholar 

  21. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Dijkmans L et al (2004) MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound. Eur Radiol 14:809–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MRI imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tabár L, Tot T, Dean PB (2007) Breast cancer: early detection with mammography. Casting type calcifications: sign of a subtype with deceptive features. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tot T. unpublished data

  25. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL et al (2003) Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumor size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study of 105 invasive tumors. Eur J Radiol 48:285–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Skaane P, Skjorten F (1999) Ultrasonographic evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma. Acta Radiol 40:369–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Winstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R et al (2001) MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinomas. Am J Roentgenol 176:399–406

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E et al (2004) Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1209–1216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Neubauer H, Li M, Kuhne-Heid R, Schneider A, Kaiser WA (2003) High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol 76:3–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Szabó BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg A et al (2003) Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol 13:2425–2435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tot T, Gere M (2008) Radiological–pathological correlation in diagnosing breast carcinoma: the role of pathology in the multimodality era. Pathol Oncol Res 14(2):173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jackson PA, Merchant W, McCormick CJ, Cook MG (1994) A comparison of large block macrosectioning and conventional techniques in breast pathology. Virchows Arch 425:243–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tucker FL (2008) New era in pathologic techniques in diagnosing and reporting breast cancers. Semin Breast Dis 11:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tot T, Tabár L (2005) Radio-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using two- and three-dimensional large histologic sections. Semin Breast Dis 8:144–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Biesemier KW, Alexander CM (2005) Enhancement of mammographic–pathologic correlation utilizing large format histology for malignant breast diseases. Semin Breast Dis 8:152–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tot T, Tabár L, Dean PB (2002) Practical breast pathology. Springer, Stuttgart, pp 115–123

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tot T (2010) Cost–benefit analysis of using large-format histology sections in routine diagnostic breast care. Breast 19(4):284–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank all the colleagues and the members of the technical staff on the Departments of Mammography and Pathology and all the members of the breast team of the Central Hospital in Falun, Sweden, for their high quality support.

Conflicts of Interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology and Clinical Cytology, Central Hospital Falun, 79182, Falun, Sweden

    Tibor Tot

  2. Department of Mammography, Central Hospital Falun, Falun, Sweden

    László Tabár

Authors
  1. Tibor Tot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. László Tabár
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tibor Tot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tot, T., Tabár, L. The role of radiological–pathological correlation in diagnosing early breast cancer: the pathologist’s perspective. Virchows Arch 458, 125–131 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-010-1005-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-010-1005-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation