medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2023, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2023; 91 (08)

Incidence of breast cancer at 5 years in women with premalignant lesions

Santiago SL, Martínez VE, Garza AJ, Islas LM, Ruiz CCA, Sanabria VLC

Language: Spanish
References: 62
Page: 549-561
PDF size: 316.08 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the cumulative incidence of breast cancer at five years of follow-up in patients with preinvasive or premalignant lesions of the mammary gland in a referral canter and to establish the associated risk factors.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study carried out in patients seen at Hospital Ángeles Lomas between 2012 and 2016 with a diagnosis, during their mastographic screening, of a precursor or pre-invasive lesion of breast cancer. Categorical variables are expressed in frequencies and percentages. The χ2 test was used for difference of proportions between groups.
Results: We obtained 3360 patients who attended the mastology service during the established time. We obtained 245 patients with premalignant lesions but 30 of them did not comply with the five-year follow-up and were lost within the stipulated surveillance period. This left 215 patients who met all the inclusion criteria. The overall cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer was that at 5 years 14.9% of patients with premalignant lesions will have breast cancer. Lobular carcinoma in situ had the highest incidence or progression of invasive cancer, with 32.1% at 5 years, followed by mucocele-like lesions, ductal carcinoma in situ and intraductal papilloma with 23.1, 21.1 and 17.1%, respectively.
Conclusions: Breast cancer remains a public health problem in Mexico and worldwide. Although more and better screening programmes are becoming available, this has brought with it other problems, such as premalignant or high-risk carcinogenic lesions, which have increased in incidence.


REFERENCES

  1. Kashyap D, Pal D, Sharma R, et al. Global increase in breastcancer incidence: risk factors and preventive measures.Biomed Res Int. 2022; 2022. doi:10.1155/2022/9605439

  2. Rojas K, Stuckey A. Breast cancer epidemiology andrisk factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 59 (4): 651-72.doi:10.1097/GRF.0000000000000239

  3. Arceo-Martínez MT, López-Meza JE, Ochoa-Zarzosa A,Palomera-Sanchez Z. Estado actual del cáncer de mamaen México: principales tipos y factores de riesgo. Gac MexOncol 2021; 20 (3): 101-10. doi:10.24875/j.gamo.21000134

  4. Harbeck N, Gnant M. Breast cancer. Lancet 2017; 389(10074): 1134-50. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31891-8

  5. Santiago-Sanabria L. Carta al editor respecto a Retrasodiagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer de Letter to editorregarding delayed disgnosis and treatment of breastcarncer in Medellín. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2023; 91 (1): 71-73. doi:10.24245/gom.v91i1.8450

  6. Sollozo-Dupont I, Villaseñor-Navarro Y. Crisis de casos decáncer de mama detectados en tamizaje durante el segundoaño de la pandemia en el INCAN. Salud Pública deMéxico 2022; 64 (3): 2-3. doi:10.21149/13552

  7. Ellis IO, Humphreys S, Michell M, Pinder SE, Wells CA, ZakhourHD. Guidelines for breast needle core biopsy handlingand reporting in breast screening assessment. J Clin Pathol2004; 57 (9): 897-902. doi:10.1136/jcp.2003.010983

  8. Dupont W, Page D. Risk factors for breast cancer in womenwith proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 1985; 312(3): 146-51. doi:10.1056/NEJM198501173120303

  9. Srivastava S, Koay EJ, Borowsky AD, et al. Cancer overdiagnosis:a biological challenge and clinical dilemma. NatRev Cancer 2019; 19 (6): 349-58. doi:10.1038/s41568-019-0142-8

  10. Migowski A. Estimation of Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis ina U.S. Breast Screening Cohort. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175(10): W114. doi:10.7326/L22-0273

  11. Lee C, Chen LE, Elmore JG. Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening:Implications of Breast Density. Med Clin North Am2018; 101 (4): 725-41. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2017.03.005.Risk-Based

  12. Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, et al. BreastCancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of AllWomen at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Societyof Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2021; 18 (9): 1280-88.doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021

  13. Kolak A, Kamińska M, Sygit K, et al. Primary and secondaryprevention of breast cancer. Ann Agric Environ Med 2017;24 (4): 549-53. doi:10.26444/aaem/75943

  14. de León Carrillo J, Sousa Vaquero J, Alfaro Galán L, FernándezVenegas M. Lesiones premalignas o precursoras decáncer de mama: aspectos diagnósticos y terapéuticos.Cirugía Andaluza 2012; 23 (1): 13-17. https://www.asacirujanos.com/admin/upfiles/revista/2012/2012-vol23-n1-2-act3.pdf

  15. Valerdiz N, Frutos-Arenas FJ, López-García MÁ, de LeónCarrillo JM, Vieites B. Lesiones mamarias borderline: categorizacióndiagnóstica y manejo. Rev Senol y Patol Mamar2022; 35 (1): 16-22. doi:10.1016/j.senol.2020.09.010

  16. Sapino A, Marchiò C, Kulka J. “Borderline” epithelial lesionsof the breast: What have we learned in the pastthree decades? Pathologica 2021; 113 (5): 354-59.doi:10.32074/1591-951X-374

  17. Shaaban AM, Sharma N. Management of B3 Lesions—PracticalIssues. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2019; 11 (2): 83-88.doi:10.1007/s12609-019-0310-6

  18. Sheikh S El, Rathbone M, Chaudhary K, et al. Rates and Outcomesof Breast Lesions of Uncertain Malignant Potential(B3) benchmarked against the National Breast ScreeningPathology Audit; Improving Performance in a High VolumeScreening Unit. Clin Breast Cancer 2022; 22 (4): 381-90.doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2022.02.004

  19. Chapa J, An G, Kulkarni SA. Examining the relationshipbetween premalignant breast lesions, carcinogenesisand tumor evolution in the mammary epithelium usingan agent-based model. PLoS One 2016; 11 (3): 1-24.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152298

  20. Flegg KM, Flaherty JJ, Bicknell AM, Jain S. Surgical outcomesof borderline breast lesions detected by needle biopsy ina breast screening program. World J Surg Oncol 2010; 8:1-6. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-8-78

  21. Catanzariti F, Avendano D, Cicero G, et al. High-risk lesionsof the breast: concurrent diagnostic tools and managementrecommendations. Insights Imaging 2021; 12 (1).doi:10.1186/s13244-021-01005-6

  22. Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EAM, Pinker K, et al. Second InternationalConsensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignantpotential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat2019; 174 (2): 279-96. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-05071-1

  23. Lewin AA, Mercado CL. Atypical ductal hyperplasia andlobular neoplasia: Update and easing of guidelines.Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214 (2): 265-75. doi:10.2214/AJR.19.21991

  24. Tan E, Arachchi A, Cheng M, Lockie D. Indeterminate ( B3) Breast Lesions and the Ongoing Role of Diagnostic OpenBiopsy 2021; 2021: 10-14.

  25. Obeng-Gyasi S, Ong C, Hwang ES. Contemporary managementof ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma insitu. Chinese Clin Oncol 2016; 5 (3): 1-14. doi:10.21037/cco.2016.04.02

  26. Rusu-Moldovan AO, Radu MG, Gruia MI, Pătroi DN, MîrzaCM, Mihu DAN. The impact of imagistic evaluation of premalignantand malignant lesions of the breast confirmedin histopathological terms. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2019;60 (4): 1275-83.

  27. van Seijen M, Lips EH, Thompson AM, et al. Ductal carcinomain situ: to treat or not to treat, that is the question.Br J Cancer 2019; 121 (4): 285-92. doi:10.1038/s41416-019-0478-6

  28. Wen HY, Brogi E. Lobular Carcinoma In Situ. Surg PatholClin 2018; 11 (1): 123-45. doi:10.1016/j.path.2017.09.009

  29. Badve S, Gokmen-Polar Y. Ductal carcinoma in situ ofbreast: Update 2019. Pathology 2019; 52 (6): 563-69.doi:10.1016/j.pathol.2019.07.005.

  30. Neal CH, Coletti MC, Joe A, Jeffries DO, Helvie MA. Doesdigital mammography increase detection of high-risk breastlesions presenting as calcifications? Am J Roentgenol.2013;201(5):1148-1154. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.10195

  31. Thompson AM, Clements K, Cheung S, et al. A prospective,national cohort study of treatment and outcomesfor screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of thebreast. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101(1):210-219. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.027

  32. McCart Reed AE, Kalinowski L, Simpson PT, Lakhani SR.Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: the increasingimportance of this special subtype. Breast Cancer Res.2021;23(1):1-16. doi:10.1186/s13058-020-01384-6

  33. Sokolova A, Lakhani SR. Lobular carcinoma in situ: diagnosticcriteria and molecular correlates. Mod Pathol.2021;34:8-14. doi:10.1038/s41379-020-00689-3

  34. Clauser P, Marino MA, Baltzer PAT, Bazzocchi M, ZuianiC. Management of atypical lobular hyperplasia, atypicalductal hyperplasia, and lobular carcinoma in situ. ExpertRev Anticancer Ther. 2016;16(3):335-346. doi:10.1586/14737140.2016.1143362

  35. Hussain M, Cunnick GH. Management of lobular carcinomain-situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia of the breast - A review.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(4):279-289. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2011.01.009

  36. Lobato JL, Moreno J, Arriba T, Beiro E, Lopez-Valverde M.Hiperplasia ductal atípica de mama: Correlación de la biopsiapercutánea y los resultados de la biopsia quirúrgica. ClinInvest Ginecol Obstet. 2013;40(2):58-61. doi:10.1016/j.gine.2012.02.003

  37. Dion L, Racin A, Brousse S, et al. Atypical epithelial hyperplasiaof the breast: state of the art. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther.2016;16(9):943-953. doi:10.1080/14737140.2016.1204916

  38. Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Lange J, et al. Subsequent BreastCancer Risk Following Diagnosis of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasiaon Needle Biopsy. 2018;3(1):36-41. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3022.Subsequent

  39. Mazzola E, Coopey SB, Griffin M, et al. Reassessing riskmodels for atypical hyperplasia: age may not matter. BreastCancer Res Treat. 2017;165(2):285-291. doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4320-7

  40. Kader T, Hill P, Rakha EA, Campbell IG, Gorringe KL. Atypicalductal hyperplasia: Update on diagnosis, management, andmolecular landscape. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20(1):1-11.doi:10.1186/s13058-018-0967-1

  41. Schiaffino S, Cozzi A, Sardanelli F. An update on the managementof breast atypical ductal hyperplasia. Br J Radiol.2020;93(1110):2-4. doi:10.1259/bjr.20200117

  42. Kulka J, Madaras L, Floris G, Lax SF. Papillary lesions of thebreast. Virchows Arch. 2022;480(1):65-84. doi:10.1007/s00428-021-03182-7

  43. Bavastro M, Monrroy KT, Castiglioni T, Laura A, Levit C.Lesiones papilares malignas de la mama : nuestra experiencia.:9-18.

  44. Wei S. Papillary lesions of the breast an update. ArchPathol Lab Med. 2016;140(7):628-643. doi:10.5858/arpa.2015-0092-RA

  45. Bonilla-Sepúlveda ÓA. Lesiones papilares de mama: estudioclínico-patológico y sobre el pronóstico en 144 casos deMedellín, Colombia. 2021;40(2):1-9. doi:doi.org/10.18566/medupb.v40n2.a02

  46. Rella R, Romanucci G, Arciuolo D, et al. Multiple Papillomasof the Breast: A Review of Current Evidence and Challenges.J Imaging. 2022;8(7). doi:10.3390/jimaging8070198

  47. Izquierdo Sanz M, Modolell Roig A. Lesiones Premalignasy Preinvasoras En Patología Mamaria. Generalidades yClasificación.; 2015.

  48. Nakhlis F. How Do We Approach Benign Proliferative Lesions?Curr Oncol Rep. 2018;20(4). doi:10.1007/s11912-018-0682-1

  49. Sherwell-Cabello S, Maffuz-Aziz A, Domínguez-Reyes C,Peralta-Casillo G, Cavazos-García R, Rodríguez-Cuevas S.Cicatriz radial y su asociación con carcinomas mamarios:Experiencia en una institución privada de enfermedadesde la mama. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2016;84(10):621-629.

  50. Beatrice A, Zanon B, Gabriela A, et al. Underestimation Ratein the Percutaneous Diagnosis of Radial Scar / ComplexSclerosing Lesion of the Breast : Systematic Review Taxade subestimação no diagnóstico percutâneo de cicatrizradiada / lesão esclerosante complexa da mama : Revisãosistemática. Published online 2022:67-73.

  51. Trombadori CML, D’Angelo A, Ferrara F, Santoro A, Belli P, ManfrediR. Radial Scar: a management dilemma. Radiol Medica2021; 126 (6): 774-85. doi:10.1007/s11547-021-01344-w

  52. Cohen MA, Newell MS. Radial scars of the breast encounteredat core biopsy: Review of histologic, imaging, andmanagement considerations. Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209(5): 1168-1177. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18156

  53. Chen YAL, Chen JIAJ, Chang CAI, Gao YI. Sclerosing adenosis: Ultrasonographic and mammographic findings andcorrelation with histopathology. Published online 2017:157-162. doi:10.3892/mco.2016.1108

  54. Winham SJ, Mehner C, Heinzen EP, et al. NanoString-basedbreast cancer risk prediction for women with sclerosingadenosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 166 (2): 641-50.doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4441-z

  55. Gity M, Arabkheradmand A, Taheri E, Shakiba M, KhademiY, Bijan B. Breast Cancer Magnetic Resonance ImagingFeatures of Adenosis in the Breast 2015; 18 (2): 187-94.

  56. Towne WS, Michaels AY, Ginter PS. Mucocele-like Lesion ofthe Breast Diagnosed on Core Biopsy Histologic and ClinicalAnalysis of 78 Cases With Focus on Features AssociatedWith Upgrade. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2022; 146 (2): 213-19.doi:10.5858/ARPA.2020-0497-OA

  57. Meares AL, Frank R, Degnim A, Vierkant R, Frost M, HartmannL. Mucocele-Like Lesions of the Breast: Clinical Outcome andHistological Analysis of 102 Cases. Hum Pathol Case Reports2016; 49 (1): 33-38. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2015.10.004.

  58. Wang J, Simsir A, Mercado C, Cangiarella J. Can core biopsyreliably diagnose mucinous lesions of the breast? Am JClin Pathol 2007; 127 (1): 124-27. doi:10.1309/DTDQM-4C7X8ENDQ0X

  59. Kim G, Bahl M. Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Reviewof Risk Prediction Models. J Breast Imaging 2021; 3 (2):144-55. doi:10.1093/jbi/wbab001

  60. Mokhtary A, Karakatsanis A, Valachis A. MammographicDensity Changes over Time and Breast Cancer Risk : ASystematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel)2021; 13 (4805). doi:10.3390/cancers13194805

  61. Bell RJ. Mammographic density and breast cancer screeningMammographic density and breast cancer screening. Climacteric2020; 0 (0): 1-6. doi:10.1080/13697137.2020.1785418

  62. Shaghayeq S, Pinku N. An overview of mammographicdensity and its association with breast cancer. Breast Cancer2018; 25 (3): 259-67. doi:10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com