Atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) represent a spectrum of breast disease referred to as "lobular neoplasia" (LN). Although LN occurs relatively infrequently, it is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, ranging from a three- to four-fold increased risk with ALH up to an eight- to ten-fold increased risk with LCIS. Initially regarded as a direct precursor to invasive lobular carcinoma, LCIS used to be treated by mastectomy. Subsequent studies demonstrating that the risk of invasive disease was conferred bilaterally and that subsequent cancers were of both the ductal and lobular phenotype led to the acceptance of LCIS as a marker of increased risk rather than a true precursor. Today, a diagnosis of LCIS remains one of the greatest identifiable risk factors for the subsequent development of breast cancer. As such, patients are offered one of three options: (1) lifelong surveillance with the goal of detecting subsequent malignancy at an early stage; (2) chemoprevention; or (3) bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Paralleling changes in the management of invasive breast cancer, trends in the management of LCIS have moved toward more conservative management. However, we have made little progress in understanding the biology of LCIS and therefore remain unable to truly optimize recommendations for individual patients.
Atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) represent a spectrum of breast disease referred to as "lobular neoplasia" (LN). Although LN occurs relatively infrequently, it is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, ranging from a three- to four-fold increased risk with ALH up to an eight- to ten-fold increased risk with LCIS.[1-3]
What we now refer to as LCIS was first described by James Ewing in 1919 as a noninvasive proliferation of the lobules and terminal ducts of the breast. This lesion was not named, however, until 1941, when Foote and Stewart coined the term "lobular carcinoma in situ." Initially regarded as a direct precursor to invasive lobular carcinoma, LCIS used to be treated by mastectomy. Subsequent studies demonstrating that the risk of invasive disease was conferred bilaterally and that subsequent cancers were of both the ductal and lobular phenotype led to the acceptance of LCIS as a marker of increased risk rather than a true precursor.
As additional histopathologic information on LCIS emerged in the 1970s, the proliferative changes within the breast lobule were recognized as a spectrum of changes including both atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and LCIS, and efforts were made to reclassify these two lesions as LN. This nomenclature was not universally adopted, however, and some authors continue to report on these two lesions independently, while others do not, resulting in some difficulty in making comparisons across series. More recently, advances in immunohistochemistry and molecular biology have led to an appreciation of greater diversity within the spectrum of LN, and there is considerable speculation that the pleomorphic variant of LCIS will prove to have a different clinical behavior than the “classical” LCIS subtype. This article will review current management trends for women with classical LCIS.
LCIS is typically an incidental finding in a breast biopsy performed for another reason. As such, the true incidence of LCIS in the population has been difficult to ascertain. Several approaches to determining the true incidence, including autopsy series, individual institution biopsy series, and population-based studies, have been undertaken. The results achieved with these various approaches have been somewhat different, yet they all suggest that LCIS is likely a rare lesion among women in the general population. Two classic studies by Haagensen and Page reported LCIS in 3.7% and 0.5% of otherwise benign breast biopsies performed at their respective institutions. Other studies report LCIS in 0.8% to 3.8% of open surgical biopsies and in 0.02% to 3.30% of image-guided core needle biopsies. Population-based data reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) from 1978 to 1998 demonstrate a much lower incidence—3.19 per 100,000 women—yet during this time there was an observed four-fold increase in the number of LCIS cases reported among women over 40 years of age, with the highest incidence rate (11.47 per 100,000 person-years) occurring in 1998 among women aged 50 to 59 years. While this trend may reflect the increasing use of mammography and image-guided biopsies during this period, the impact of other factors, such as the increased use of combination hormone replacement therapy during this time, remains uncertain.
Presentation and Diagnosis
Historically, LCIS has been considered a clinically occult lesion not associated with changes on physical examination or mammographic imaging; when identified, it was frequently found to be multicentric and bilateral.[2,4,7] In the era of widespread screening mammography, more recent data suggest that LCIS is associated with calcifications in 21% to 67% of cases. LCIS has also been reported to enhance on MRI, although these data remain relatively limited. In their original description, Foote and Stewart described LCIS as a proliferation of small, uniform, discohesive cells that fill and often distend the acinar units within a lobule. Criteria for diagnosis, later outlined by Page and Anderson, are as follows:
(1) The characteristic and uniform cells must comprise the entire population of cells within the lobular unit.
(2) All of the lobule must be filled with these cells (ie, no intercellular empty spaces between cells).
(3) There must be distension and expansion of at least half of the acini in the lobular unit.
A diagnosis of LCIS made by surgical excision does not require further surgical intervention, and there is no indication to document margin status in a specimen that contains only LN. Similarly, the finding of LCIS in the surrounding breast parenchyma of a lumpectomy specimen containing DCIS or invasive carcinoma does not alter surgical management of the breast primary and does not increase the rate of in-breast recurrence in patients undergoing breast conservation.[14-16] The scenario that often results in controversy regarding management is that of LCIS diagnosed on core biopsy. The most recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines state that a core biopsy diagnosis of LCIS should always be followed by surgical excision to rule out an associated malignancy, with subsequent management decisions to be made based on the final pathologic diagnosis (Figure).
1. Chuba PJ, Hamre MR, Yap J, et al. Bilateral risk for subsequent breast cancer after lobular carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results data. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5534-41.
2. Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R Bodian C. Lobular neoplasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ) of the breast. Cancer. 1978;42:737-69.
3. Page DL, Dupont WD Rogers LW. Ductal involvement by cells of atypical lobular hyperplasia in the breast: a long-term follow-up study of cancer risk. Hum Pathol. 1988;19:201-7.
4. Foote FW Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ: A rare form of mammary cancer. Am J Pathol. 1941;17:491-96 3.
5. Anderson BO, Calhoun KE Rosen EL. Evolving concepts in the management of LN. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2006;4:511-22.
6. Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR Moe RE. Changing incidence of lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;75:259-68.
7. Haagensen CD. Diseases of the breast. 3rd edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1986.
8. Page DL, Kidd TE, Jr., Dupont WD, et al. Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol. 1991;22:1232-9.
9. Hussain M Cunnick GH. Management of lobular carcinoma in-situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia of the breast—a review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:279-89.
10. Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS Daling JR. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001. Cancer. 2006;106:2104-12.
11. Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:684-90.
12. Page DL Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1987.
13. Goldschmidt RA Victor TA. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Semin Surg Oncol. 1996;12:314-20.
14. Abner AL, Connolly JL, Recht A, et al. The relation between the presence and extent of lobular carcinoma in situ and the risk of local recurrence for patients with infiltrating carcinoma of the breast treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer. 2000;88:1072-7.
15. Ciocca RM, Li T, Freedman GM Morrow M. Presence of lobular carcinoma in situ does not increase local recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2263-71.
16. Moran M Haffty BG. Lobular carcinoma in situ as a component of breast cancer: the long-term outcome in patients treated with breast-conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40:353-8.
17. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org. Accessed July 27, 2011.
18. Berg WA, Mrose HE, Ioffe OB. Atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ at core-needle breast biopsy. Radiology. 2001;218:503-9.
19. Brem RF, Lechner MC, Jackman RJ, et al. Lobular neoplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy: variables associated with carcinoma at surgical excision. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:637-41.
20. Cangiarella J, Guth A, Axelrod D, et al. Is surgical excision necessary for the management of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy?: a report of 38 cases and review of the literature. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:979-83.
21. Crisi GM, Mandavilli S, Cronin E Ricci A, Jr. Invasive mammary carcinoma after immediate and short-term follow-up for LN on core biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:325-33.
22. Elsheikh TM Silverman JF. Follow-up surgical excision is indicated when breast core needle biopsies show atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ: a correlative study of 33 patients with review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:534-43.
23. 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.
24. Lechner MC, Jackman RJ, Brem RF, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy with surgical correlation: a multi-institutional study. Radiology. 1999;213:106.
25. Liberman L, Drotman M, Morris EA, et al. Imaging-histologic discordance at percutaneous breast biopsy. Cancer. 2000;89:2538-46.
26. Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A, et al. Lobular neoplasia: core needle breast biopsy underestimation of malignancy in relation to radiologic and pathologic features. Breast. 2008;17:623-30.
27. Mahoney MC, Robinson-Smith TM Shaughnessy EA. Lobular neoplasia at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy: correlation with surgical excisional biopsy and mammographic follow-up. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:949-54.
28. Margenthaler JA, Duke D, Monsees BS, et al. Correlation between core biopsy and excisional biopsy in breast high-risk lesions. Am J Surg. 2006;192:534-7.
29. Meloni GB, Becchere MP, Soro D, et al. Percutaneous vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy with upright stereotactic equipment. Indications, limitations and results. Acta Radiol. 2002;43:575-8.
30. O’Driscoll D, Britton P, Bobrow L, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ on core biopsy-what is the clinical significance? Clin Radiol. 2001;56:216-20.
31. Pacelli A, Rhodes DJ Amrami KK. Outcome of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy: clinical and surgical follow-up of 30 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:591–92.
32. Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, et al. Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance. Radiology. 2000;216:831-7.
33. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Derhagopian RP Gould EW. Lobular neoplasia in breast core needle biopsy specimens is not associated with an increased risk of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:797-9.
34. Shin SJ Rosen PP. Excisional biopsy should be performed if lobular carcinoma in situ is seen on needle core biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:697-701.
35. Zhang RR, O’Hea BJ, Brebbia JR, et al. Atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ on large core needle biopsy of the breast: is surgical excision necessary? Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:610.
36. Luedtke C, Murray M, Nehhozina T, et al, editors. Outcomes of prospective excision for classic LCIS and ALH on percutaneous breast core biopsy. Abstract No. 209. United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology Annual Meeting; 2011.
37. Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium. TBCRC 020: The incidence of adjacent synchronous ipsilateral infiltrating carcinoma and/or DCIS in patients diagnosed with lobular neoplasia of the breast by core needle biopsy. http://pub.emmes.com/study/bcrc/ Accessed July 28, 2011.
38. Bodian CA, Perzin KH Lattes R. Lobular neoplasia. Long term risk of breast cancer and relation to other factors. Cancer. 1996;78:1024-34.
39. Li CI, Anderson BO, Porter P, et al. Changing incidence rate of invasive lobular breast carcinoma among older women. Cancer. 2000;88:2561-9.
40. Fisher ER, Land SR, Fisher B, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: twelve-year observations concerning lobular carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2004;100:238-44.
41. De Leeuw WJ, Berx G, Vos CB, et al. Simultaneous loss of E-cadherin and catenins in invasive lobular breast cancer and lobular carcinoma in situ. J Pathol. 1997;183:404-11.
42. Hwang ES, Nyante SJ, Yi Chen Y, et al. Clonality of lobular carcinoma in situ and synchronous invasive lobular carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100:2562-72.
43. Lakhani SR, Collins N, Sloane JP Stratton MR. Loss of heterozygosity in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Mol Pathol. 1995;48:M74-8.
44. Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T Lakhani SR. Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol. 2005;205:248-54.
45. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2006;4:480-508.
46. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75-89.
47. Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, et al. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1051-7.
48. Oskar S, Muhsen S, Sung J, et al. Chemoprevention among women with lobular carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:S59.
49. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:
50. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879-86.
51. Cummings SR, Eckert S, Krueger KA, et al. The effect of raloxifene on risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results from the MORE randomized trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation. JAMA. 1999;281:2189-97.
52. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2727-41.
53. Visvanathan K, Chlebowski RT, Hurley P, et al. American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3235-58.
54. Port ER, Montgomery LL, Heerdt AS Borgen PI. Patient reluctance toward tamoxifen use for breast cancer primary prevention. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:580-5.
55. Tchou J, Hou N, Rademaker A, et al. Acceptance of tamoxifen chemoprevention by physicians and women at risk. Cancer. 2004;100:1800-6.
56. Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:77-84.