Can Excision be Avoided for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia of the Breast Diagnosed on Core Biopsy? ADH Upgrade and Excision
Abstract
Background: Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed on core biopsy (CB) is associated with an upgrade risk to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive carcinoma on surgical excision (SE). Although single institutional studies have shown observation and surveillance can be considered in a select subgroup, most patients undergo surgery. We aim to identify features least associated with upgrade on SE, who may potentially be spared surgery.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study at University of Miami analyzing imaging, clinical, and pathologic data of ADH diagnosed on CB. Histopathologic characteristics of ADH on CB and SE were recorded and analyzed.
Results: Seventy-one CB from 70 patients were included. CB removed >50% of the imaging target in 69% of cases and ≤50% in 31% of cases, showing complete ductule involvement in 31% and incomplete involvement in 69%. ADH was focal (≤1 focus) in 58% and non-focal (>1 focus) in 42%. On SE, 5 cases upgraded to DCIS. Upgrade was more common when CB removed ≤50% compared to >50% (18% vs. 2%). Complete ADH had a significantly higher upgrade rate than incomplete ADH, with no difference between focal and non-focal. Forty-eight percent had low-risk ADH features, defined as incomplete ADH with >50% target removal.
Conclusion: Upgrade is limited to DCIS and related to sampling adequacy and extent of ADH. Careful histologic-radiologic correlation can identify a subgroup of ADH with low-risk features, representing possible candidates for observation and surveillance.
Full text article
References
Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55(11):2698-708. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850601)55:11<2698::aid-cncr2820551127>3.0.co;2-a
WHO (2019) Classification of Tumours Editorial Board2019.
Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer. 1990;65(3):518-29. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900201)65:3<518::aid-cncr2820650324>3.0.co;2-o
Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9-versus 11-gauge. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(1):229-34. doi: 10.2214/ajr.08.1342
Picouleau E, Denis M, Lavoue V, Tas P, Mesbah H, Poree P, et al. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: the black hole of routine breast cancer screening. Anticancer Res. 2012;32(12):5441-6. doi:
Allison KH, Abraham LA, Weaver DL, Tosteson AN, Nelson HD, Onega T, et al. Trends in breast biopsy pathology diagnoses among women undergoing mammography in the United States: a report from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer. 2015;121(9):1369-78. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29199
Mesurolle B, Perez JC, Azzumea F, Lemercier E, Xie X, Aldis A, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1389-94. doi: 10.2214/ajr.13.10864
Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia: results from the Nurses' Health Study. Cancer. 2007;109(2):180-7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22408
Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast--risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):78-89. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1407164
Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, Frost MH, Sellers TA, Vierkant RA, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2671-7. doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.09.0217
Peña A, Shah SS, Fazzio RT, Hoskin TL, Brahmbhatt RD, Hieken TJ, et al. Multivariate model to identify women at low risk of cancer upgrade after a core needle biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164(2):295-304. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4253-1
Menen RS, Ganesan N, Bevers T, Ying J, Coyne R, Lane D, et al. Long-Term Safety of Observation in Selected Women Following Core Biopsy Diagnosis of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(1):70-6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5512-9
Grabenstetter A, Brennan SB, Sevilimedu V, Kuba MG, Giri DD, Wen HY, et al. Is Surgical Excision of Focal Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Warranted? Experience at a Tertiary Care Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30(7):4087-94. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13319-4
Tozbikian G, Brogi E, Vallejo CE, Giri D, Murray M, Catalano J, et al. Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Bordering on Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Int J Surg Pathol. 2017;25(2):100-7. doi: 10.1177/1066896916662154
D’Orsi CJ SE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
Ely KA, Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL. Core biopsy of the breast with atypical ductal hyperplasia: a probabilistic approach to reporting. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(8):1017-21. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200108000-00005
Zhang C, Wang EY, Liu F, Ruhul Quddus M, James Sung C. Type of Architecture, Presence of Punctate Necrosis, and Extent of Involvement in Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Can Predict the Diagnosis of Breast Carcinoma on Excision: A Clinicopathologic Study of 143 Cases. Int J Surg Pathol. 2021;29(7):716-21. doi: 10.1177/10668969211010954
Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, Geller BM, Onega T, Tosteson AN, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. Jama. 2015;313(11):1122-32. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.1405
Elmore JG, Pepe MS, Weaver DL. Discordant Interpretations of Breast Biopsy Specimens by Pathologists--Reply. Jama. 2015;314(1):83-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6239
Bong TSH, Tan JKT, Ho JTS, Tan PH, Lau WS, Tan TM, et al. Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia of the Breast on Core Needle Biopsy: Risk of Malignant Upgrade on Surgical Excision. J Breast Cancer. 2022;25(1):37-48. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2022.25.e7
Nguyen CV, Albarracin CT, Whitman GJ, Lopez A, Sneige N. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in directional vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: considerations for surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(3):752-61. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1127-8
Estrada J, Larson KE, Kilgore LJ, Wagner JL, Winblad OD, Balanoff CR, et al. Safety of de-escalation of surgical intervention for atypical ductal hyperplasia on percutaneous biopsy: One size does not fit all. Am J Surg. 2023;225(1):21-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.09.044
Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N, Thiesse P, Mignotte H, Faure C, et al. Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg. 2008;196(3):339-45. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.07.038
Han LK, Hussain A, Dodelzon K, Ginter PS, Towne WS, Marti JL. Active Surveillance of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia of the Breast. Clin Breast Cancer. 2023;23(6):649-57. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.05.008
Kilgore LJ, Yi M, Bevers T, Coyne R, Marita L, Lane D, et al. Risk of Breast Cancer in Selected Women With Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Who do not Undergo Surgical Excision. Ann Surg. 2022;276(6):e932-e6. doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000004849
Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, Frank E, Pinto D, Basila D, et al. The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e026797. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026797
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis (Version 1.2023). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf [
Rubio IT, Wyld L, Marotti L, Athanasiou A, Regitnig P, Catanuto G, et al. European guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of breast lesions with uncertain malignant potential (B3 lesions) developed jointly by EUSOMA, EUSOBI, ESP (BWG) and ESSO. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2024;50(1):107292. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107292
Authors
Copyright (c) 2025 Archives of Breast Cancer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright©. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits copy and redistribution of the material in any medium or format or adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, except for commercial purposes.