Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is a significant pathology finding commonly discovered during breast biopsies. While ADH itself is not a precursor to cancer, its diagnosis indicates a heightened risk of developing breast cancer. This classification as a “high-risk” lesion necessitates careful understanding and management, distinguishing it from a direct precursor lesion. The increased breast cancer risk associated with ADH is not localized to the site of the ADH but extends throughout the breasts. Management strategies, including treatment, vary based on the type of biopsy performed, whether excisional or core. Therefore, healthcare professionals must possess a nuanced understanding of Adh Diagnosis to ensure appropriate patient care, avoiding both under-treatment and over-treatment.
Objectives:
- Define the characteristic pathology findings in atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis.
- Clarify the implications of an ADH diagnosis on breast cancer risk.
- Detail surgical risk modification recommendations following an ADH diagnosis.
- Detail medical risk modification recommendations following an ADH diagnosis.
Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
Introduction to Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosis
Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is a pathological entity identified in breast tissue samples. An ADH diagnosis is typically an incidental finding, often arising from needle biopsies prompted by mammogram abnormalities. Crucially, an atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis signifies an elevated risk of breast cancer. This categorizes ADH as a “high-risk” lesion, not a “precursor” lesion. This distinction is vital as breast cancer risk is elevated across the entire breast tissue, not just at the ADH site. Due to its incidental nature, the precise incidence of ADH diagnosis remains unknown. However, once diagnosed, it’s established to increase breast cancer risk by approximately fivefold.[1] This emphasizes the importance of accurate ADH diagnosis and subsequent patient management.
Etiology of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia
The exact cause of atypical ductal hyperplasia remains unclear. However, a strong family history of breast cancer is a significant predisposing factor for an ADH diagnosis.[2] Research by Hoogerbrugge et al. revealed that nearly half of women undergoing prophylactic mastectomies due to high familial breast cancer risk exhibited high-risk lesions, with ADH accounting for 39% of these. This observation suggests a hereditary component in ADH etiology, warranting further investigation.
Furthermore, a 2009 study indicated a decline in ADH diagnosis rates coinciding with the decreased use of post-menopausal hormone therapies. This suggests that hormone therapy may have been a contributing factor in ADH development.[3] Understanding these potential etiological factors is crucial in assessing individual risk associated with an ADH diagnosis.
Epidemiology of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosis
Atypical ductal hyperplasia, by its nature of lacking distinct imaging features, is predominantly an incidental finding during pathological examination. The most frequent route to ADH diagnosis is through core needle biopsies. However, ADH can also be detected in excisional biopsies, breast cancer surgeries, cosmetic breast reduction specimens, or any breast tissue submitted for pathology. Prevalence rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis in biopsies range from 3.5% to 5%, with core needle biopsies being the most common detection method.[4]
A large-scale study in 2009, analyzing nearly 31,000 biopsies, showed an initial increase in ADH diagnosis rates. This correlated with increased breast cancer awareness, screening mammography, prophylactic mastectomies, and the use of post-menopausal hormone therapy, peaking in 1999 (5.5 cases per 10,000 mammograms). However, with the subsequent decline in post-menopausal hormone therapy use, a slight decrease in ADH diagnosis has been observed over time.[3]
Typically, patients receiving an ADH diagnosis are females in their fifth to sixth decades of life, reflecting the demographic most likely to undergo breast biopsies. While less frequent, males can also receive an atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis. A Dutch study examining over 5,000 gynecomastia cases in males found a 0.4% prevalence of atypical ductal hyperplasia.[5]
Pathophysiology of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia
Genetic studies have identified recurrent alterations in ADH, specifically losses on chromosomes 16q and 17p and gains on 1q. These genetic abnormalities are notably similar to those observed in low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (LGDCIS), implying a potential precursor-product relationship. [6] This genetic overlap underscores the importance of distinguishing between ADH and LGDCIS in diagnosis and understanding the biological spectrum of these lesions.
Histopathology of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia
Normal breast ducts terminate in terminal duct lobular units (TDLUs). Each TDLU consists of a duct ending in lobules, which are composed of small glandular structures called acini. The ductal-lobular system is lined by a bilayer of cells: inner luminal epithelial cells and outer luminal myoepithelial cells. The majority of breast lesions, both benign and malignant, originate within the TDLU.[7]
Atypical ductal hyperplasia is characterized by an intraductal clonal epithelial cell proliferation. Both ADH and LGDCIS affect the TDLU or interlobular ducts. Histologically, ADH and LGDCIS share atypical features: small, round, monomorphic, non-overlapping cells that are evenly spaced, with uniform nuclei, infrequent mitosis, and inconspicuous nucleoli. The differentiation between ADH and LGDCIS hinges on the extent or volume of atypical cells. If the atypical cells involve ≤ 2 mm, ≤ 2 spaces, or a portion of a duct, the diagnosis is ADH. However, it’s important to note that there isn’t a universally accepted size criterion for distinguishing ADH from LGDCIS.[8]
ADH exhibits architectural similarities to DCIS, including arcades, rigid bridges, bars of uniform thickness, a solid growth pattern, and micropapillae (papillae with a broad tip, slender base, and lacking fibrovascular cores). A common growth pattern in ADH is cribriform architecture, where cells bridge and fill the duct, forming pseudo-lumens that appear as punched-out spaces. In ADH, these spaces are less uniform than in DCIS, and the bridges may be thin with streaming cells, contrasting with the polarized cells in DCIS.[9][1]
Benign cellular changes, such as spindle cells, columnar cell change (sometimes with apical snouts), or cuboidal cells, can coexist with ADH. Benign proliferations like usual ductal hyperplasia may also be present alongside ADH. ADH frequently associates with secretory material, promoting microcalcification development, often detected on mammography. ADH can also involve benign lesions like apocrine metaplasia, papillomas, fibroadenomas, sclerosing adenosis, and gynecomastia. ADH within a papilloma is termed papilloma with atypia. [10]
Large nuclei with prominent nucleoli and frequent mitosis, characteristic of intermediate or high-grade DCIS, are not found in ADH. The presence of high-grade nuclei, regardless of lesion size, necessitates a diagnosis of high-grade DCIS.
ADH typically presents as a solitary focus or involves a small area in a core biopsy. However, ADH can be found close to DCIS when multiple levels of core biopsy sections are examined (although not routinely performed). Patients with an ADH diagnosis from core biopsy may have more severe lesions upon surgical excision (DCIS or invasive carcinoma). Therefore, surgical excision is generally recommended following an ADH diagnosis on core biopsy.[11]
Immunohistochemistry staining patterns are similar for ADH and LGDCIS. Both typically stain negatively for Cytokeratin 5/6 (though positive in myoepithelial cells surrounding the duct or lobule due to the in situ nature). ADH is typically diffusely and strongly positive for estrogen receptor (ER).[12][[13]](#article-45.r13]
Diagnostic ambiguity can occur in distinguishing ADH from LGDCIS. An ADH diagnosis is often rendered when LGDCIS is highly considered, but histological features or size criteria are insufficient for LGDCIS. In genuinely borderline cases, an ADH diagnosis is appropriate, and pathologists should communicate the case’s complexity to the treating clinician. [8]
History and Physical Examination in Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosis
Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis most commonly follows biopsy prompted by mammographic calcifications or imaging abnormalities. ADH can also be an incidental finding in breast tissue sent for pathology for various reasons, including oncologic resections, plastic surgery, and excisional biopsies. Physical examination typically reveals no gross abnormalities such as lumps, breast discoloration, or distortion. The absence of palpable signs underscores the importance of imaging and pathological evaluation in ADH diagnosis.
Evaluation Following Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosis
The type of specimen in which ADH is identified is crucial, as management strategies are specimen-dependent.
When atypical ductal hyperplasia is diagnosed via core needle biopsy, further tissue acquisition through excisional biopsy is necessary. A wire or seed localization technique should be utilized during the core biopsy to guide subsequent excision of the area. Re-excision is recommended because a larger tissue specimen increases the likelihood of detecting an upgrade to carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma. Studies indicate that 22% to 65% of ADH diagnoses from core needle biopsies are upgraded to carcinoma upon excisional biopsy.[14][15] Upgrades are predominantly to DCIS, but invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) is also sometimes found.
However, if an ADH diagnosis is made solely on an excisional biopsy, no further surgery is required, even with positive margins. This is because ADH is a high-risk lesion but not a pre-cancerous or cancerous lesion in itself.[1][14][16] Understanding this distinction is vital in determining appropriate surgical management after an ADH diagnosis.
Treatment and Management of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia
Once an atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis is confirmed and breast carcinoma is excluded, implementing risk reduction strategies becomes paramount.
One significant risk reduction measure is tamoxifen therapy, particularly as most ADH lesions are estrogen receptor-positive (ER+). The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial demonstrated an 86% breast cancer risk reduction in women with ADH treated with tamoxifen.[17] Therefore, tamoxifen should be discussed as a management option for patients with an ADH diagnosis. However, tamoxifen carries risks, including increased endometrial cancer, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE), especially in women over 50. The risk-benefit discussion regarding tamoxifen must carefully consider these risks, and the decision to initiate tamoxifen should be patient-dependent.
Furthermore, enhanced surveillance and patient awareness are crucial components of post-ADH diagnosis management.[18][19] This includes regular clinical breast exams, mammography, and potentially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) depending on individual risk factors.
Differential Diagnosis for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia
When a core biopsy yields an atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis, a subsequent excisional biopsy is essential to obtain a larger specimen and definitively rule out breast carcinoma. It is also important to recognize the morphological similarities between low-grade DCIS and ADH on biopsy. Therefore, meticulous examination of the pathology specimen is crucial to differentiate ADH from DCIS.[1] This differential diagnosis is central to appropriate patient management and avoiding under-treatment of DCIS.
Surgical Oncology Considerations in Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia
Historically, atypical ductal hyperplasia has been subject to surgical overtreatment. If the ADH diagnosis is made via core needle biopsy, a more extensive excisional biopsy is necessary to exclude breast carcinoma.[20] However, if the ADH diagnosis is solely from an excisional biopsy and confirms ADH only, no further surgery is indicated. This remains true even if margins are positive, as ADH is not cancerous. Node sampling and mastectomy are not warranted in the management of ADH.
Radiation Oncology in Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Management
Radiation therapy currently has no role in the management of patients diagnosed solely with atypical ductal hyperplasia. The primary management strategies focus on surgical excision when indicated and medical risk reduction strategies.
Complications of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Management
Complications related to atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis and management arise from both under-treatment and over-treatment. Under-treatment, specifically failing to proceed with excisional biopsy after an ADH diagnosis on core biopsy, carries the risk of missing an underlying breast carcinoma.[21][20] Conversely, over-treatment, such as aggressive surgeries (mastectomy or excessively large biopsies) in the absence of malignancy, is also a potential complication.[18] Misinterpreting ADH as a cancerous or precancerous lesion, rather than a high-risk lesion, could lead to inappropriate chemotherapy with its associated toxicities. Furthermore, the potential complications of tamoxifen, as previously discussed, must be weighed when considering medical risk reduction.
Deterrence and Patient Education Following Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosis
Patient education is crucial following an atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis. Patients need to understand the meaning of the diagnosis and the actual breast cancer risk it confers. It is essential to emphasize that an ADH diagnosis signifies an increased risk but is not a cancer itself. Patients diagnosed with ADH require close clinical follow-up due to their elevated future breast cancer risk.[18] Additionally, adherence to standard cancer risk-reducing guidelines, such as maintaining a healthy BMI and smoking cessation, is recommended. Empowering patients with knowledge about their ADH diagnosis and risk factors is vital for informed decision-making and proactive health management.
Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes in Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Management
Atypical ductal hyperplasia is a pathology finding, usually discovered incidentally during breast biopsy. Crucially, an ADH diagnosis itself is not a pre-cancerous or cancerous lesion. However, it is a high-risk lesion, indicating a fivefold increased likelihood of developing breast carcinoma – anywhere in the breasts – in the future. Communicating this nuanced cancer risk associated with an ADH diagnosis to patients can be challenging.
Regardless of lesion excision, the patient remains at increased breast cancer risk, necessitating ongoing monitoring and screening. Tamoxifen therapy may be beneficial as a breast cancer prevention agent, contingent on ER status and patient suitability considering the side effect profile (Level I evidence).
Surgeons must be well-versed in the appropriate surgical management of ADH. An ADH diagnosis on core needle biopsy necessitates needle or seed localized excisional biopsy to rule out adjacent breast carcinoma. However, if an ADH diagnosis is confirmed on excisional biopsy as ADH only, surgical management is complete, even with positive margins [Level 2 evidence]. A collaborative, multidisciplinary approach involving pathologists, radiologists, surgeons, and oncologists is essential to optimize patient care and outcomes following an atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis.
Review Questions
Figure
Microscopic view (x20 magnification) of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia (ADH) showing atypical epithelial cell proliferation within a breast duct. The cells exhibit uniform nuclei and organized growth pattern characteristic of ADH. The remaining ductal area shows a less structured cellular arrangement, further highlighting the atypical proliferation.
References
1.Kader T, Hill P, Rakha EA, Campbell IG, Gorringe KL. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: update on diagnosis, management, and molecular landscape. Breast Cancer Res. 2018 May 02;20(1):39. [PMC free article: PMC5932853] [PubMed: 29720211]
2.Hoogerbrugge N, Bult P, de Widt-Levert LM, Beex LV, Kiemeney LA, Ligtenberg MJ, Massuger LF, Boetes C, Manders P, Brunner HG. High prevalence of premalignant lesions in prophylactically removed breasts from women at hereditary risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jan 01;21(1):41-5. [PubMed: 12506168]
3.Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Jaffer S, Seger D, Miglioretti DL. Rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia have declined with less use of postmenopausal hormone treatment: findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Nov;18(11):2822-8. [PMC free article: PMC2920735] [PubMed: 19900937]
4.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 Jan 01;372(1):78-89. [PMC free article: PMC4347900] [PubMed: 25551530]
5.Lapid O, Jolink F, Meijer SL. Pathological findings in gynecomastia: analysis of 5113 breasts. Ann Plast Surg. 2015 Feb;74(2):163-6. [PubMed: 23788148]
6.Larson PS, de las Morenas A, Cerda SR, Bennett SR, Cupples LA, Rosenberg CL. Quantitative analysis of allele imbalance supports atypical ductal hyperplasia lesions as direct breast cancer precursors. J Pathol. 2006 Jul;209(3):307-16. [PubMed: 16604511]
7.Figueroa JD, Pfeiffer RM, Patel DA, Linville L, Brinton LA, Gierach GL, Yang XR, Papathomas D, Visscher D, Mies C, Degnim AC, Anderson WF, Hewitt S, Khodr ZG, Clare SE, Storniolo AM, Sherman ME. Terminal duct lobular unit involution of the normal breast: implications for breast cancer etiology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Oct;106(10) [PMC free article: PMC4200067] [PubMed: 25274491]
8.Lewin AA, Mercado CL. Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Lobular Neoplasia: Update and Easing of Guidelines. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Feb;214(2):265-275. [PubMed: 31825261]
9.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 Oct;29(7):716-721. [PubMed: 33881947]
10.East EG, Carter CS, Kleer CG. Atypical Ductal Lesions of the Breast: Criteria, Significance, and Laboratory Updates. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018 Oct;142(10):1182-1185. [PubMed: 30281370]
11.Pawloski KR, Christian N, Knezevic A, Wen HY, Van Zee KJ, Morrow M, Tadros AB. Atypical ductal hyperplasia bordering on DCIS on core biopsy is associated with higher risk of upgrade than conventional atypical ductal hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Dec;184(3):873-880. [PMC free article: PMC7657999] [PubMed: 32857242]
12.Jain RK, Mehta R, Dimitrov R, Larsson LG, Musto PM, Hodges KB, Ulbright TM, Hattab EM, Agaram N, Idrees MT, Badve S. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability. Mod Pathol. 2011 Jul;24(7):917-23. [PubMed: 21532546]
13.Martinez AP, Cohen C, Hanley KZ, Li XB. Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Jul;140(7):686-9. [PubMed: 27116088]
14.Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EA, Comstock C, Kurtz C, Kubik R, Madjar H, Lepori D, Kampmann G, Mundinger A, Baege A, Decker T, Hosch S, Tausch C, Delaloye JF, Morris E, Varga Z. First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Sep;159(2):203-13. [PMC free article: PMC5012144] [PubMed: 27522516]
15.Allen A, Cauthen A, Dale P, Jean-Louis C, Lord A, Smith B. Evaluating the frequency of upgrade to malignancy following surgical excision of high-risk breast lesions and ductal carcinoma in situ identified by core needle biopsy. Breast J. 2019 Jan;25(1):103-106. [PubMed: 30461129]
16.Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EAM, Pinker K, Kubik-Huch RA, Mundinger A, Decker T, Tausch C, Dammann F, Baltzer PA, Fallenberg EM, Foschini MP, Dellas S, Knauer M, Malhaire C, Sonnenschein M, Boos A, Morris E, Varga Z. Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Apr;174(2):279-296. [PMC free article: PMC6538569] [PubMed: 30506111]
17.Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cecchini RS, Cronin WM, Robidoux A, Bevers TB, Kavanah MT, Atkins JN, Margolese RG, Runowicz CD, James JM, Ford LG, Wolmark N. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Nov 16;97(22):1652-62. [PubMed: 16288118]
18.Farshid G, Edwards S, Kollias J, Gill PG. Active surveillance of women diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia on core needle biopsy may spare many women potentially unnecessary surgery, but at the risk of undertreatment for a minority: 10-year surgical outcomes of 114 consecutive cases from a single center. Mod Pathol. 2018 Mar;31(3):395-405. [PubMed: 29099502]
19.Peña A, Shah SS, Fazzio RT, Hoskin TL, Brahmbhatt RD, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, Boughey JC, Visscher DW, Degnim AC. 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 Jul;164(2):295-304. [PubMed: 28474262]
20.Rageth CJ, Rubenov R, Bronz C, Dietrich D, Tausch C, Rodewald AK, Varga Z. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and the risk of underestimation: tissue sampling method, multifocality, and associated calcification significantly influence the diagnostic upgrade rate based on subsequent surgical specimens. Breast Cancer. 2019 Jul;26(4):452-458. [PMC free article: PMC6570781] [PubMed: 30591993]
21.Co M, Kwong A, Shek T. Factors affecting the under-diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsies – A 10-year retrospective study and review of the literature. Int J Surg. 2018 Jan;49:27-31. [PubMed: 29146271]
Disclosure: Sandra Tomlinson-Hansen declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
Disclosure: Myra Khan declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
Disclosure: Sebastiano Cassaro declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
