Premium
Breast pathology practice: most common problems in a consultation service
Author(s) -
Putti T C,
Pinder S E,
Elston C W,
Lee A H S,
Ellis I O
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
histopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.626
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1365-2559
pISSN - 0309-0167
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02246.x
Subject(s) - myoepithelial cell , cytokeratin , pathology , immunohistochemistry , differential diagnosis , hyperplasia , medicine , breast cancer , anatomical pathology , cancer
Considerable progress has been made in understanding breast lesions utilizing molecular methods, but conventional morphology, simple immunohistochemical stains and common sense still prevail in diagnosing the vast majority of breast disease. The focus of this review is to identify the most common breast lesions sent to our consultation practice, and to reiterate salient diagnostic features, differential diagnoses and common pitfalls in identifying these lesions. Separation of epithelial proliferative lesions and differentiation between usual epithelial hyperplasia (UEH) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) are the most common problems encountered in our Consultation practice. Differentiation between UEH and ADH is based on the assumption that ADH is a clonal process, recognized by a uniform phenotype and more recently described immunohistochemical markers such as differential cytokeratin and also hormone receptor expression. Difficulty in subtyping invasive carcinomas and exclusion of in situ and/or invasive carcinoma in a sclerosing lesion is also commonly noted. Finally, problems in distinguishing various papillary and fibroepithelial lesions are also encountered. The use of common immunohistochemical stains such as various cytokeratin and myoepithelial markers, E‐cadherin and hormone receptors is helpful in solving most of these diagnostic dilemmas.