Iranian Journal of Pathology

Comparison of the Structural, Cytological and Biomarker Expression in Carcinoma in situ and Invasive Components in Breast Carcinoma

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

Azar Naimi 1
Niloufar Mohaghegh 2

1 Department of Pathology, School of Medicine Al-Zahra Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30699/ijp.2024.2025907.3285
Abstract
Background & Objective: Breast cancer is thought to arise from non-invasive breast lesions, such as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS is considered a direct precursor of invasive carcinoma. The morphological features alone do not reflect the biological truth of this disease. Therefore, we investigated features of carcinoma in situ and the invasive components in women diagnosed with breast cancer.
Methods: This study was a cross-sectional study. The corresponding IHC slides were selected from the pathology archive and examined by the pathologist. Fifty-one samples which showed both in situ and invasive components confirmed immunohistochemically, were included in the study.
Results: In 70.6% of the cases a high grade of in situ and invasive carcinoma was observed. In 45.1% of the studied cases, a solid structure was observed in in-situ carcinoma, and no otherwise specified structure was observed in invasive carcinoma. In 74.5% of both in situ and invasive carcinoma types, ER.PR had a positive value. In 45.5% of the cases, both in situ and invasive carcinoma components show low Ki67. In 42.2%, both in situ and invasive carcinomas were Her2 negative. There was no significant difference between the grade (P=0.687), Her2 type (P=0.532), and structure (P=0.532). ER.PR (P=1.00) and Ki67 (P=0.180) of in situ and invasive carcinoma in this study.
Conclusion: Our study showed differences between in situ and invasive biomarker expression. According to our findings, owing to heterogeneity, in situ components can't be representative of invasive components for treatment choices.

Keywords

in situ breast carcinoma
invasive breast carcinoma
nuclear grade
structural patterns
immunohistochemical markers

Subjects

  1. Shokouh TZ, Ezatollah A, Barand P. Interrelationships Between Ki67, HER2/neu, p53, ER, and PR Status and Their Associations With Tumor Grade and Lymph Node Involvement in Breast Carcinoma Subtypes: Retrospective-Observational Analytical Study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(32):e1359. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000001359] [PMID]
  2. Otaghvar HA, Hosseini M, Tizmaghz A, Shabestanipour G, Noori H. A review on metastatic breast cancer in Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2015;5(6):429-33. [DOI:10.1016/j.apjtb.2015.02.001]
  3. Nafissi N, Khayamzadeh M, Zeinali Z, Pazooki D, Hosseini M, Akbari ME. Epidemiology and histopathology of breast cancer in Iran versus other Middle Eastern countries. Middle East J Cancer. 2018;9(3):243-51.
  4. Brinton LA, Brogan DR, Coates RJ, Swanson CA, Potischman N, Stanford JL. Breast cancer risk among women under 55 years of age by joint effects of usage of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy. Menopause. 2018;25(11):1195-200. [PMID] [DOI:10.1097/GME.0000000000001217]
  5. Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox AN, Cunningham AP, Carver T, Hartley S, et al. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med. 2019;21(8):1708-18. [DOI:10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9] [PMID]
  6. Beetch M, Harandi-Zadeh S, Yang T, Boycott C, Chen Y, Stefanska B, et al. DNA methylation landscape of triple-negative ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) progressing to the invasive stage in canine breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):2415. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-59260-4] [PMID]
  7. Hanna WM, Parra-Herran C, Lu FI, Slodkowska E, Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: an update for the pathologist in the era of individualized risk assessment and tailored therapies. Mod Pathol. 2019;32(7):896-915. [DOI:10.1038/s41379-019-0204-1] [PMID]
  8. Zubair M, Wang S, Ali N. Advanced Approaches to Breast Cancer Classification and Diagnosis. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:632079. [DOI:10.3389/fphar.2020.632079] [PMID]
  9. Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J, Galan M, Galaburda L, Fu Y, Deitz AC, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Colditz GA, Collins LC. Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10:1-9. [DOI:10.1186/bcr2128] [PMID]
  10. Joensuu K, Leidenius M, Kero M, Andersson LC, Horwitz KB, Heikkilä P. ER, PR, HER2, Ki-67 and CK5 in early and late relapsing breast cancer-Reduced CK5 expression in metastases. Breast cancer: Basic Clin Res. 2013;7:BCBCR-S10701. [DOI:10.4137/BCBCR.S10701] [PMID]
  11. Vegunta S, Lester SP, Pruthi S, Mussallem DM. Effects of major lifestyle factors on breast cancer risk: impact of weight, nutrition, physical activity, alcohol and tobacco. Breast Cancer Manag. 2020;9(4):BMT51. [DOI:10.2217/bmt-2020-0033]
  12. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49. [DOI:10.3322/caac.21660] [PMID]
  13. Ménard S, Fortis S, Castiglioni F, Agresti R, Balsari A. HER2 as a prognostic factor in breast cancer. Oncology. 2001;61 Suppl 2:67-72. [DOI:10.1159/000055404] [PMID]
  14. Bernoux A, de Cremoux P, Lainé-Bidron C, Martin EC, Asselain B, Magdelénat H. Estrogen receptor negative and progesterone receptor positive primary breast cancer: pathological characteristics and clinical outcome. Institut Curie Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;49(3):219-25. [DOI:10.1023/A:1006011328655] [PMID]
  15. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235(4785):177-82. [DOI:10.1126/science.3798106] [PMID]
  16. Crosier M, Scott D, Wilson RG, Griffiths CD, May FE, Westley BR. Differences in Ki67 and c-erbB2 expression between screen-detected and true interval breast cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5(10):2682-8.
  17. Gomes DS, Porto SS, Balabram D, Gobbi H. Inter-observer variability between general pathologists and a specialist in breast pathology in the diagnosis of lobular neoplasia, columnar cell lesions, atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9:121. [DOI:10.1186/1746-1596-9-121] [PMID]
  18. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6) :478-88. [DOI:10.1093/jnci/djr027] [PMID]
  19. Scripcaru G, Zardawi IM. Mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: a fresh look at architectural patterns. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:979521. [DOI:10.1155/2012/979521] [PMID]  
  20. Sarode VR, Han JS, Morris DH, Peng Y, Rao R. A Comparative Analysis of Biomarker Expression and Molecular Subtypes of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Invasive Breast Carcinoma by Image Analysis: Relationship of the Subtypes with Histologic Grade, Ki67, p53 Overexpression, and DNA Ploidy. Int J Breast Cancer. 2011;2011:217060. [DOI:10.4061/2011/217060] [PMID]  
  21. Lakhani SR EI, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ, World Health Organization. International Agency for Research on Cancer: WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. 4th edition IARC: Lyon. 2012.
  22. Ross DS, Wen YH, Brogi E. Ductal carcinoma in situ: morphology-based knowledge and molecular advances. Adv Anat Pathol. 2013;20(4):205-16. [DOI:10.1097/PAP.0b013e3182976ed5] [PMID]
  23. Perez AA, Balabram D, Salles Mde A, Gobbi H. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between histopathological features and age of patients. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9:227. [DOI:10.1186/s13000-014-0227-3] [PMID]
  24. Benson JR, Wishart GC. Predictors of recurrence for ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conserving surgery. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(9):e348-57. [DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70135-9] [PMID]
  25. Osborne CK. Steroid hormone receptors in breast cancer management. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;51(3):227-38. [DOI:10.1023/A:1006132427948] [PMID]
  26. Steinman S, Wang J, Bourne P, Yang Q, Tang P. Expression of cytokeratin markers, ER-alpha, PR, HER-2/neu, and EGFR in pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with co-existing invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2007;37(2):127-34.
  27. Yu KD, Wu LM, Liu GY, Wu J, Di GH, Shen ZZ, et al. Different distribution of breast cancer subtypes in breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), DCIS with microinvasion, and DCIS with invasion component. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(5):1342-8. [DOI:10.1245/s10434-010-1407-3] [PMID]
  28. Hoque A, Menter DG, Sahin AA, Sneige N, Lippman SM. No increased Ki67 expression in ductal carcinoma in situ associated with invasive breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(2):153-4.
  29. Clark BZ, Onisko A, Assylbekova B, Li X, Bhargava R, Dabbs DJ. Breast cancer global tumor biomarkers: a quality assurance study of intratumoral heterogeneity. Mod Pathol. 2019;32(3):354-66. [DOI:10.1038/s41379-018-0153-0] [PMID]
  30. Mylonas I, Makovitzky J, Jeschke U, Briese V, Friese K, Gerber B. Expression of Her2/neu, steroid receptors (ER and PR), Ki67 and p53 in invasive mammary ductal carcinoma associated with ductal carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Versus invasive breast cancer alone. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(3a):1719-23.
  31. Stark A, Hulka BS, Joens S, Novotny D, Thor AD, Wold LE, et al. HER-2/neu amplification in benign breast disease and the risk of subsequent breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(2):267-74. [DOI:10.1200/JCO.2000.18.2.267] [PMID]
  32. Ozkan-Gurdal S, Cabioglu N, Ozcinar B, Muslumanoglu M, Ozmen V, Kecer M, et al. Factors predicting microinvasion in Ductal Carcinoma in situ. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(1):55-60. [DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.1.55] [PMID]
  33. Roses RE, Paulson EC, Sharma A, Schueller JE, Nisenbaum H, Weinstein S, et al. HER-2/neu overexpression as a predictor for the transition from in situ to invasive breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(5):1386-9. [DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1101] [PMID]  
  34. Marchiò C, Annaratone L, Marques A, Casorzo L, Berrino E, Sapino A. Evolving concepts in HER2 evaluation in breast cancer: Heterogeneity, HER2-low carcinomas and beyond. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021;72:123-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.02.016] [PMID]
  35. Wan ZB, Gao HY, Wei L, Zhang AQ, Zhang JY, Wang Y, et al. Expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki-67 in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(44): e13055. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000013055] [PMID]
  36. Barnes DM, Bartkova J, Camplejohn RS, Gullick WJ, Smith PJ, Millis RR. Overexpression of the c-erbB-2 oncoprotein: why does this occur more frequently in ductal carcinoma in situ than in invasive mammary carcinoma and is this of prognostic significance? Eur J Cancer. 1992;28(2-3):644-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0959-8049(05)80117-0] [PMID]
  37. Thorat MA, Levey PM, Jones JL, Pinder SE, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, et al. Prognostic and Predictive Value of HER2 Expression in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS Randomized Trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(19):5317-24. [DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1239] [PMID]
Iranian Journal of Pathology
Volume 19, Issue 3
Summer 2024
Pages 318-325

  • Receive Date 07 April 2024
  • Revise Date 03 June 2024
  • Accept Date 10 June 2024

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us