Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invasive Breast Carcinoma of No Special Type, Microinvasive Carcinoma, Tubular Carcinoma, and Cribriform Carcinoma

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Comprehensive Guide to Core Needle Biopsies of the Breast

  • 723 Accesses

Abstract

Invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC NST) is the most common invasive carcinoma. It is a diagnosis of exclusion conferred when the tumor cannot be classified as a specific type of breast carcinoma. Consistent with the no special type classification, IBC NST shows marked heterogeneity in morphology, grade, hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 expression, and prognosis. Microinvasive carcinoma, defined as invasion 1 mm or less in greatest dimension, is usually found in association with carcinoma in situ and shows an overall prognosis similar to ductal carcinoma in situ. Tubular and invasive cribriform carcinomas are special types of IBC that are low grade, invariably HR positive and HER2 negative, and have an excellent prognosis. Although gene expression profiling has segregated tumors into different subtypes, classification based on morphologic features is invaluable for some of these special types of breast carcinomas as it determines prognosis and guides treatment options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rakha EAAK, Bu H, Ellis IO, Foschini MP, Horii R, Masuda S, Penault-Llorca F, Schnitt SJ, Tsuda H, Vincent-Salomon A, Yang WT. WHO classification of tumours: breast tumours. 5th ed. Lyon: World Health Organization; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson WF, Pfeiffer RM, Dores GM, Sherman ME. Comparison of age distribution patterns for different histopathologic types of breast carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(10):1899–905.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher CJ, Egan MK, Smith P, Wicks K, Millis RR, Fentiman IS. Histopathology of breast cancer in relation to age. Br J Cancer. 1997;75(4):593–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR, Moe RE. Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA. 2003;289(11):1421–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1992;20(6):479–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher ER, Gregorio RM, Fisher B, Redmond C, Vellios F, Sommers SC. The pathology of invasive breast cancer. A syllabus derived from findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol no. 4). Cancer. 1975;36(1):1–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, Goldstein LJ, et al. NCCN task force report: estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. J Natl Compr Cancer Network. 2009;7(Suppl 6):S1–21; quiz S2–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Broberg A, Glas U, Gustafsson SA, Hellstrom L, Somell A. Relationship between mammographic pattern and estrogen receptor content in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1983;3(2):201–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CD, Freeman AH, Lomas DJ, Warren RM. How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population? Clin Radiol. 1999;54(10):676–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sickies EA. Sonographic detectability of breast calcification. Proc SPIE. 1983;419:51–2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lambie RW, Hodgden D, Herman EM, Kopperman M. Sonomammographic manifestations of mammographically detectable breast microcalcifications. J Ultrasound Med. 1983;2(11):509–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196(1):123–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fornage BD, Sneige N, Faroux MJ, Andry E. Sonographic appearance and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of breast carcinomas smaller than 1 cm3. J Ultrasound Med. 1990;9(10):559–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology. 1989;172(3):671–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Moy L, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):868–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jabbar SB, Lynch B, Seiler S, Hwang H, Sahoo S. Pathologic findings of breast lesions detected on magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141(11):1513–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Choudhery S, Lynch B, Sahoo S, Seiler SJ. Features of non-mass enhancing lesions detected on 1.5 T breast MRI: a radiologic and pathologic analysis. Breast Dis. 2015;35(1):13–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238(1):42–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mandoul C, Verheyden C, Millet I, Orliac C, Pages E, Thomassin I, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: what do we know and where do we stand? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019;100(10):537–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Bogaert LJ, Maldague P. Scirrhous carcinoma of the female breast. Invest Cell Pathol. 1980;3(4):377–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arps DP, Healy P, Zhao L, Kleer CG, Pang JC. Invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features: a comparison study to invasive ductal and invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138(3):719–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO. The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992;22(3):207–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 2002;41(3A):154–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 2002;41(3A):151–2; discussion 2–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19(5):403–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bloom HJ, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957;11(3):359–77.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Patey DH, Scarff RW. The position of histology in the prognosis of carcinoma of the breast. Lancet. 1928;1:801–4.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Haybittle JL, Blamey RW, Elston CW, Johnson J, Doyle PJ, Campbell FC, et al. A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1982;45(3):361–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Blamey RW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE, Lee AH, Macmillan RD, Morgan DA, et al. Survival of invasive breast cancer according to the Nottingham Prognostic Index in cases diagnosed in 1990-1999. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(10):1548–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cui X, Harada S, Shen D, Siegal GP, Wei S. The utility of phosphohistone H3 in breast cancer grading. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2015;23:689–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Start RD, Flynn MS, Cross SS, Rogers K, Smith JH. Is the grading of breast carcinomas affected by a delay in fixation? Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1991;419(6):475–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, Dawkins H, Harvey J, Sterrett G, et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol. 1995;26(8):873–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yildiz-Aktas IZ, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. The effect of cold ischemic time on the immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression in invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2012;25(8):1098–105.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Usami S, Moriya T, Amari M, Suzuki A, Ishida T, Sasano H, et al. Reliability of prognostic factors in breast carcinoma determined by core needle biopsy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37(4):250–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shannon J, Douglas-Jones AG, Dallimore NS. Conversion to core biopsy in preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions: is it justified by results? J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(10):762–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. McIntosh SA, Panchalingam L, Payne S, Miller ID, Sarkar TK, Hutcheon AW, et al. Freehand core biopsy in breast cancer: an accurate predictor of tumour grade following neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Breast. 2002;11(6):496–500.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Andrade VP, Gobbi H. Accuracy of typing and grading invasive mammary carcinomas on core needle biopsy compared with the excisional specimen. Virchows Arch. 2004;445(6):597–602.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Monticciolo DL. Histologic grading at breast core needle biopsy: comparison with results from the excised breast specimen. Breast J. 2005;11(1):9–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60(12):1300–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Denley H, Pinder SE, Elston CW, Lee AH, Ellis IO. Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(1):20–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Daveau C, Baulies S, Lalloum M, Bollet M, Sigal-Zafrani B, Sastre X, et al. Histological grade concordance between diagnostic core biopsy and corresponding surgical specimen in HR-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(9):2195–200.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kwok TC, Rakha EA, Lee AH, Grainge M, Green AR, Ellis IO, et al. Histological grading of breast cancer on needle core biopsy: the role of immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation. Histopathology. 2010;57(2):212–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E, Koot VC, Borel Rinkes IH, Mali WP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2000;82(5):1017–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Verkooijen HM, Core Biopsy After Radiological Localisation Study G. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multicenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer. 2002;99(6):853–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dillon MF, Hill AD, Quinn CM, O’Doherty A, McDermott EW, O’Higgins N. The accuracy of ultrasound, stereotactic, and clinical core biopsies in the diagnosis of breast cancer, with an analysis of false-negative cases. Ann Surg. 2005;242(5):701–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ibrahim AE, Bateman AC, Theaker JM, Low JL, Addis B, Tidbury P, et al. The role and histological classification of needle core biopsy in comparison with fine needle aspiration cytology in the preoperative assessment of impalpable breast lesions. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(2):121–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Brenner RJ, Fajardo L, Fisher PR, Dershaw DD, Evans WP, Bassett L, et al. Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166(2):341–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bassett L, Winchester DP, Caplan RB, Dershaw DD, Dowlatshahi K, Evans WP 3rd, et al. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;47(3):171–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rakha EA, Gill MS, El-Sayed ME, Khan MM, Hodi Z, Blamey RW, et al. The biological and clinical characteristics of breast carcinoma with mixed ductal and lobular morphology. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(2):243–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Powe DG, Green AR, Habashy H, Grainge MJ, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(1):73–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wiseman C, Liao KT. Primary lymphoma of the breast. Cancer. 1972;29(6):1705–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Telesinghe PU, Anthony PP. Primary lymphoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1985;9(3):297–307.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Talwalkar SS, Miranda RN, Valbuena JR, Routbort MJ, Martin AW, Medeiros LJ. Lymphomas involving the breast: a study of 106 cases comparing localized and disseminated neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(9):1299–309.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ganjoo K, Advani R, Mariappan MR, McMillan A, Horning S. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the breast. Cancer. 2007;110(1):25–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sauer T. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of extra mammary metastatic lesions in the breast: a retrospective study of 36 cases diagnosed during 18 years. Cytojournal. 2010;7:10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Vaughan A, Dietz JR, Moley JF, Debenedetti MK, Aft RL, Gillanders WE, et al. Metastatic disease to the breast: the Washington University experience. World J Surg Oncol. 2007;5:74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Saluja K, Thakral B, Bit-Ivan E, Kaufman M, Liu L. Fine-needle aspiration of metastatic renal cell carcinoma to a male breast: a rare initial presentation. Cytojournal. 2014;11:8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Nasit JG, Shah B, Shah M. Metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma presenting as gynecomastia in male: a diagnostic dilema in fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytojournal. 2012;9:21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Vassalli L, Ferrari VD, Simoncini E, Rangoni G, Montini E, Marpicati P, et al. Solitary breast metastases from a renal cell carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;68(1):29–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Robens J, Goldstein L, Gown AM, Schnitt SJ. Thyroid transcription factor-1 expression in breast carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(12):1881–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Domfeh AB, Carley AL, Striebel JM, Karabakhtsian RG, Florea AV, McManus K, et al. WT1 immunoreactivity in breast carcinoma: selective expression in pure and mixed mucinous subtypes. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(10):1217–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Li CI, Chen VW, Clarke CA, Ries LA, et al. US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(5):dju055.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Wick MR, Lillemoe TJ, Copland GT, Swanson PE, Manivel JC, Kiang DT. Gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 as a marker for breast cancer: immunohistochemical analysis of 690 human neoplasms and comparison with alpha-lactalbumin. Hum Pathol. 1989;20(3):281–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bhargava R, Beriwal S, Dabbs DJ. Mammaglobin vs GCDFP-15: an immunohistologic validation survey for sensitivity and specificity. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127(1):103–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Han JH, Kang Y, Shin HC, Kim HS, Kang YM, Kim YB, et al. Mammaglobin expression in lymph nodes is an important marker of metastatic breast carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(10):1330–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lewis GH, Subhawong AP, Nassar H, Vang R, Illei PB, Park BH, et al. Relationship between molecular subtype of invasive breast carcinoma and expression of gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 and mammaglobin. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(4):587–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Dennis JL, Hvidsten TR, Wit EC, Komorowski J, Bell AK, Downie I, et al. Markers of adenocarcinoma characteristic of the site of origin: development of a diagnostic algorithm. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(10):3766–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Mazoujian G, Bodian C, Haagensen DE Jr, Haagensen CD. Expression of GCDFP-15 in breast carcinomas. Relationship to pathologic and clinical factors. Cancer. 1989;63(11):2156–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Yang M, Nonaka D. A study of immunohistochemical differential expression in pulmonary and mammary carcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(5):654–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Miettinen M, McCue PA, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Rys J, Czapiewski P, Wazny K, et al. GATA3: a multispecific but potentially useful marker in surgical pathology: a systematic analysis of 2500 epithelial and nonepithelial tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(1):13–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Cimino-Mathews A, Subhawong AP, Illei PB, Sharma R, Halushka MK, Vang R, et al. GATA3 expression in breast carcinoma: utility in triple-negative, sarcomatoid, and metastatic carcinomas. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(7):1341–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Cimino-Mathews A, Subhawong AP, Elwood H, Warzecha HN, Sharma R, Park BH, et al. Neural crest transcription factor Sox10 is preferentially expressed in triple-negative and metaplastic breast carcinomas. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(6):959–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975;55(2):231–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Wellings SR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1973;50(5):1111–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Marshall LM, Hunter DJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Byrne C, London SJ, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1997;6(5):297–301.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Lakhani SR, Audretsch W, Cleton-Jensen AM, Cutuli B, Ellis I, Eusebi V, et al. The management of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Is LCIS the same as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(14):2205–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Hanby AM, Hughes TA. In situ and invasive lobular neoplasia of the breast. Histopathology. 2008;52(1):58–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Oyama T, Iijima K, Takei H, Horiguchi J, Iino Y, Nakajima T, et al. Atypical cystic lobule of the breast: an early stage of low-grade ductal carcinoma in-situ. Breast Cancer. 2000;7(4):326–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Lerwill MF. Flat epithelial atypia of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(4):615–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR. Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol. 2005;205(2):248–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Roylance R, Gorman P, Harris W, Liebmann R, Barnes D, Hanby A, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of breast tumors stratified by histological grade reveals new insights into the biological progression of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1999;59(7):1433–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Buerger H, Otterbach F, Simon R, Poremba C, Diallo R, Decker T, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast-evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J Pathol. 1999;187(4):396–402.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. O’Connell P, Pekkel V, Fuqua SA, Osborne CK, Clark GM, Allred DC. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(9):697–703.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Moinfar F, Man YG, Bratthauer GL, Ratschek M, Tavassoli FA. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type (“clinging ductal carcinoma in situ”): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer. 2000;88(9):2072–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Tirkkonen M, Tanner M, Karhu R, Kallioniemi A, Isola J, Kallioniemi OP. Molecular cytogenetics of primary breast cancer by CGH. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1998;21(3):177–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Natrajan R, Lambros MB, Geyer FC, Marchio C, Tan DS, Vatcheva R, et al. Loss of 16q in high grade breast cancer is associated with estrogen receptor status: evidence for progression in tumors with a luminal phenotype? Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2009;48(4):351–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Allred DC, Wu Y, Mao S, Nagtegaal ID, Lee S, Perou CM, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ and the emergence of diversity during breast cancer evolution. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(2):370–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S, Lederer B, Heppner BI, Weber KE, et al. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis in different subtypes of breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 3771 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):40–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Amin M, Gress DM, Meyer Vega LR, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, Compton CC. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. Chicago, IL: Springer; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Veronesi P, Rodriguez-Fernandez J, Intra M. Controversies in the use of sentinel nodes: microinvasion, post surgery and after preoperative systemic treatment. Breast. 2007;16(Suppl 2):S67–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hanna MG, Jaffer S, Bleiweiss IJ, Nayak A. Re-evaluating the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in microinvasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2014;27(11):1489–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Hoda SA, Chiu A, Prasad ML, Giri D, Hoda RS. Are microinvasion and micrometastasis in breast cancer mountains or molehills? Am J Surg. 2000;180(4):305–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Silverstein MJ, Waisman JR, Gamagami P, Gierson ED, Colburn WJ, Rosser RJ, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast (208 cases). Clinical factors influencing treatment choice. Cancer. 1990;66(1):102–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Klauber-DeMore N, Tan LK, Liberman L, Kaptain S, Fey J, Borgen P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy: is it indicated in patients with high-risk ductal carcinoma-in-situ and ductal carcinoma-in-situ with microinvasion? Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7(9):636–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Schuh ME, Nemoto T, Penetrante RB, Rosner D, Dao TL. Intraductal carcinoma. Analysis of presentation, pathologic findings, and outcome of disease. Arch Surg. 1986;121(11):1303–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kinne DW, Petrek JA, Osborne MP, Fracchia AA, DePalo AA, Rosen PP. Breast carcinoma in situ. Arch Surg. 1989;124(1):33–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Patchefsky AS, Schwartz GF, Finkelstein SD, Prestipino A, Sohn SE, Singer JS, et al. Heterogeneity of intraductal carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 1989;63(4):731–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Yeh IT, Kowalyshyn MJ, Schultz DJ, Weiss MC, et al. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(5):961–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Silver SA, Tavassoli FA. Mammary ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Cancer. 1998;82(12):2382–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. National Coordinating Group for Breast Cancer Screening Pathology. Pathology reporting in breast cancer screening. Sheffield: NHSBSP Publications; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Lagios MD, Westdahl PR, Margolin FR, Rose MR. Duct carcinoma in situ. Relationship of extent of noninvasive disease to the frequency of occult invasion, multicentricity, lymph node metastases, and short-term treatment failures. Cancer. 1982;50(7):1309–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Vieira CC, Mercado CL, Cangiarella JF, Moy L, Toth HK, Guth AA. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical presentation, imaging features, pathologic findings, and outcome. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73(1):102–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Sim YT, Litherland J, Lindsay E, Hendry P, Brauer K, Dobson H, et al. Upgrade of ductal carcinoma in situ on core biopsies to invasive disease at final surgery: a retrospective review across the Scottish Breast Screening Programme. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(5):502–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Dillon MF, McDermott EW, Quinn CM, O’Doherty A, O’Higgins N, Hill AD. Predictors of invasive disease in breast cancer when core biopsy demonstrates DCIS only. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93(7):559–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Nemoto T, Castillo N, Tsukada Y, Koul A, Eckhert KH Jr, Bauer RL. Lobular carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. J Surg Oncol. 1998;67(1):41–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Yang M, Moriya T, Oguma M, De La Cruz C, Endoh M, Ishida T, et al. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma (T1mic) of the breast. The clinicopathological profile and immunohistochemical features of 28 cases. Pathol Int. 2003;53(7):422–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Prasad ML, Osborne MP, Giri DD, Hoda SA. Microinvasive carcinoma (T1mic) of the breast: clinicopathologic profile of 21 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(3):422–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Diaz NM, Cox CE, Ebert M, Clark JD, Vrcel V, Stowell N, et al. Benign mechanical transport of breast epithelial cells to sentinel lymph nodes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(12):1641–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL. Benign transport of breast epithelium into axillary lymph nodes after biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;113(2):259–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Microinvasive carcioma. In: Schnitt SJCLC, editor. Biopsy interpretation of the breast. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 236–48.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Tunon-de-Lara C, Chauvet MP, Baranzelli MC, Baron M, Piquenot J, Le-Bouedec G, et al. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy and factors associated with invasion in extensive DCIS of the breast treated by mastectomy: the Cinnamome prospective multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(12):3853–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. NHS Breast Screening Programme, Association of Breast Surgery. An audit of screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2012 to March 2013. London: NHS Breast Screening Programme; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Gojon H, Fawunmi D, Valachis A. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with microinvasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(1):5–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Parikh RR, Haffty BG, Lannin D, Moran MS. Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: prognostic implications, long-term outcomes, and role of axillary evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(1):7–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Murphy CD, Jones JL, Javid SH, Michaelson JS, Nolan ME, Lipsitz SR, et al. Do sentinel node micrometastases predict recurrence risk in ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion? Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):566–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Shatat L, Gloyeske N, Madan R, O’Neil M, Tawfik O, Fan F. Microinvasive breast carcinoma carries an excellent prognosis regardless of the tumor characteristics. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(12):2684–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Lyman GH, Temin S, Edge SB, Newman LA, Turner RR, Weaver DL, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(13):1365–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Sopik V, Sun P, Narod SA. Impact of microinvasion on breast cancer mortality in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167(3):787–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Wang W, Zhu W, Du F, Luo Y, Xu B. The demographic features, clinicopathological characteristics and cancer-specific outcomes for patients with microinvasive breast cancer: a SEER database analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:42045.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. van la Parra RF, Ernst MF, Barneveld PC, Broekman JM, Rutten MJ, Bosscha K. The value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(6):631–5.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Dominguez FJ, Golshan M, Black DM, Hughes KS, Gadd MA, Christian R, et al. Sentinel node biopsy is important in mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(1):268–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Cooper HS, Patchefsky AS, Krall RA. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 1978;42(5):2334–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Carstens PH. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. A study of frequency. Am J Clin Pathol. 1978;70(2):204–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Kader HA, Jackson J, Mates D, Andersen S, Hayes M, Olivotto IA. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: a population-based study of nodal metastases at presentation and of patterns of relapse. Breast J. 2001;7(1):8–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Romano AM, Wages N, Smolkin M, Fortune K, Atkins K, Dillon PM. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: institutional and SEER database analysis supporting a unique classification. Breast Dis. 2015;35:103–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Sullivan T, Raad RA, Goldberg S, Assaad SI, Gadd M, Smith BL, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: a retrospective analysis and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;93(3):199–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Rakha EA, Lee AH, Evans AJ, Menon S, Assad NY, Hodi Z, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: further evidence to support its excellent prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):99–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Cabral AH, Recine M, Paramo JC, McPhee MM, Poppiti R, Mesko TW. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: an institutional experience and review of the literature. Breast J. 2003;9(4):298–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Li CI. Risk of mortality by histologic type of breast cancer in the United States. Hormones & Cancer. 2010;1(3):156–65.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Visfeldt J, Scheike O. Male breast cancer. I. Histologic typing and grading of 187 Danish cases. Cancer. 1973;32(4):985–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Fedko MG, Scow JS, Shah SS, Reynolds C, Degnim AC, Jakub JW, et al. Pure tubular carcinoma and axillary nodal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):338–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Sheppard DG, Whitman GJ, Huynh PT, Sahin AA, Fornage BD, Stelling CB. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(1):253–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Elson BC, Helvie MA, Frank TS, Wilson TE, Adler DD. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mode of presentation, mammographic appearance, and frequency of nodal metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161(6):1173–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Vega A, Garijo F. Radial scar and tubular carcinoma. Mammographic and sonographic findings. Acta Radiol. 1993;34(1):43–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Kim DB, Lee YR, Kim MJ, et al. Pure and mixed tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic differential features. Korean J Radiol. 2007;8(2):103–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Tweedie E, Tonkin K, Kerkvliet N, Doig GS, Sparrow RK, O’Malley FP. Biologic characteristics of breast cancer detected by mammography and by palpation in a screening program: a pilot study. Clin Invest Med. 1997;20(5):300–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Rajakariar R, Walker RA. Pathological and biological features of mammographically detected invasive breast carcinomas. Br J Cancer. 1995;71(1):150–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Anderson TJ, Lamb J, Alexander F, Lutz W, Chetty U, Forrest AP, et al. Comparative pathology of prevalent and incident cancers detected by breast screening. Edinburgh Breast Screening Project. Lancet. 1986;1(8480):519–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Mitnick JS, Gianutsos R, Pollack AH, Susman M, Baskin BL, Ko WD, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: sensitivity of diagnostic techniques and correlation with histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(2):319–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. McDivitt RW, Boyce W, Gersell D. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Clinical and pathological observations concerning 135 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982;6(5):401–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Andersen JA, Carter D, Linell F. A symposium on sclerosing duct lesions of the breast. Pathol Annu. 1986;21(Pt 2):145–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. van Deurzen CH, McMillan DC, Purdie CA. WHO classifications of tumours: breast tumours. 5th ed. Lyon: World Health Organization; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Sahoo S, Recant WM. Triad of columnar cell alteration, lobular carcinoma in situ, and tubular carcinoma of the breast. Breast J. 2005;11(2):140–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Rosen PP. Columnar cell hyperplasia is associated with lobular carcinoma in situ and tubular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23(12):1561.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Brandt SM, Young GQ, Hoda SA. The “Rosen Triad”: tubular carcinoma, lobular carcinoma in situ, and columnar cell lesions. Adv Anat Pathol. 2008;15(3):140–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Abdel-Fatah TM, Powe DG, Hodi Z, Lee AH, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. High frequency of coexistence of columnar cell lesions, lobular neoplasia, and low grade ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive tubular carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(3):417–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Clement PB, Azzopardi JG, Microglandular adenosis of the breast—a lesion simulating tubular carcinoma. Histopathology. 1983;7(2):169–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Wheeler DT, Tai LH, Bratthauer GL, Waldner DL, Tavassoli FA. Tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast: an analysis of 27 cases of a tumor with a hybrid morphology and immunoprofile. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(12):1587–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Esposito NN, Chivukula M, Dabbs DJ. The ductal phenotypic expression of the E-cadherin/catenin complex in tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast: an immunohistochemical and clinicopathologic study. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(1):130–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Green I, McCormick B, Cranor M, Rosen PP. A comparative study of pure tubular and tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(6):653–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Pereira H, Pinder SE, Sibbering DM, Galea MH, Elston CW, Blamey RW, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. IV: should you be a typer or a grader? A comparative study of two histological prognostic features in operable breast carcinoma. Histopathology. 1995;27(3):219–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Kuroda H, Tamaru J, Takeuchi I, Ohnisi K, Sakamoto G, Adachi A, et al. Expression of E-cadherin, alpha-catenin, and beta-catenin in tubulolobular carcinoma of the breast. Virchows Arch. 2006;448(4):500–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Libby A, Allred DC, Elledge RM. Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):1442–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Alvarenga CA, Paravidino PI, Alvarenga M, Gomes M, Dufloth R, Zeferino LC, et al. Reappraisal of immunohistochemical profiling of special histological types of breast carcinomas: a study of 121 cases of eight different subtypes. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(12):1066–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Lopez-Garcia MA, Geyer FC, Natrajan R, Kreike B, Mackay A, Grigoriadis A, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of tubular carcinomas of the breast reveals similarities and differences with molecular subtype-matched ductal and lobular carcinomas. J Pathol. 2010;222(1):64–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Rosen PP, Lesser ML, Arroyo CD, Cranor M, Borgen P, Norton L. p53 in node-negative breast carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study of epidemiologic risk factors, histologic features, and prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(4):821–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Waldman FM, Hwang ES, Etzell J, Eng C, DeVries S, Bennington J, et al. Genomic alterations in tubular breast carcinomas. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(2):222–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Livi L, Paiar F, Meldolesi E, Talamonti C, Simontacchi G, Detti B, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: outcome and loco-regional recurrence in 307 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31(1):9–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Javid SH, Smith BL, Mayer E, Bellon J, Murphy CD, Lipsitz S, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: results of a large contemporary series. Am J Surg. 2009;197(5):674–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Min Y, Bae SY, Lee HC, Lee JH, Kim M, Kim J, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathologic features and survival outcome compared with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Breast Cancer. 2013;16(4):404–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology—breast cancer. Version 4.2021; 2021. www.nccn.org

  165. Stauber J, Chevli N, Haque W, Messer JA, Farach AM, Schwartz MR, et al. Prognostic impact of radiation therapy in tubular carcinoma of the breast. Radiother Oncol. 2021;159:202–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Chen JX, Zhang WW, Dong Y, Sun JY, He ZY, Wu SG. The effects of postoperative radiotherapy on survival outcomes in patients under 65 with estrogen receptor positive tubular breast carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):226.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Deos PH, Norris HJ. Well-differentiated (tubular) carcinoma of the breast. A clinicopathologic study of 145 pure and mixed cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1982;78(1):1–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Papadatos G, Rangan AM, Psarianos T, Ung O, Taylor R, Boyages J. Probability of axillary node involvement in patients with tubular carcinoma of the breast. Br J Surg. 2001;88(6):860–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Lea V, Gluch L, Kennedy CW, Carmalt H, Gillett D. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: axillary involvement and prognostic factors. ANZ J Surg. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12791.

  170. Dejode M, Sagan C, Campion L, Houvenaeghel G, Giard S, Rodier JF, et al. Pure tubular carcinoma of the breast and sentinel lymph node biopsy: a retrospective multi-institutional study of 234 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(3):248–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, Zurrida S, Luini A, Galimberti V, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):595–600.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Ashikaga T, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(10):881–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, Mansel RE, Group AT. Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer—results of the ALMANAC validation phase. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;99(2):203–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(8):567–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project protocol B-06. 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer. 1993;71(8):2507–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Page DL, Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Lee D, Stewart HJ. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1983;7(4):525–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Liu J, Zheng X, Han Z, Lin S, Han H, Xu C. Clinical characteristics and overall survival prognostic nomogram for invasive cribriform carcinoma of breast: a SEER population-based analysis. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):168.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. Venable JG, Schwartz AM, Silverberg SG. Infiltrating cribriform carcinoma of the breast: a distinctive clinicopathologic entity. Hum Pathol. 1990;21(3):333–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Stutz JA, Evans AJ, Pinder S, Ellis IO, Yeoman LJ, Wilson AR, et al. The radiological appearances of invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. Nottingham Breast Team. Clin Radiol. 1994;49(10):693–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Zhang W, Zhang T, Lin Z, Zhang X, Liu F, Wang Y, et al. Invasive cribriform carcinoma in a Chinese population: comparison with low-grade invasive ductal carcinoma-not otherwise specified. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013;6(3):445–57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Lee YJ, Choi BB, Suh KS. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, MRI, and 18 F-FDG PET-CT features. Acta Radiol. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185114538425.

  182. Lim HS, Jeong SJ, Lee JS, Park MH, Yoon JH, Kim JW, et al. Sonographic findings of invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(5):701–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Wells CA, Ferguson DJ. Ultrastructural and immunocytochemical study of a case of invasive cribriform breast carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 1988;41(1):17–20.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Saout L, Leduc M, Suy-Beng PT, Meignie P. [A new case of cribriform breast carcinoma associated with histiocytic giant cell reaction]. Arch Anat Cytol Pathol. 1985;33(1):58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Rabban JT, Swain RS, Zaloudek CJ, Chase DR, Chen YY. Immunophenotypic overlap between adenoid cystic carcinoma and collagenous spherulosis of the breast: potential diagnostic pitfalls using myoepithelial markers. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(10):1351–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Zhang W, Lin Z, Zhang T, Liu F, Niu Y. A pure invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast with bone metastasis if untreated for thirteen years: a case report and literature review. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:251.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Helena Hwang & Sunati Sahoo

  2. Department of Pathology, UT Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Karan Saluja

Authors
  1. Helena Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karan Saluja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sunati Sahoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunati Sahoo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA

    Sandra J. Shin

  2. Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Yunn-Yi Chen

  3. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Paula S. Ginter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hwang, H., Saluja, K., Sahoo, S. (2022). Invasive Breast Carcinoma of No Special Type, Microinvasive Carcinoma, Tubular Carcinoma, and Cribriform Carcinoma. In: Shin, S.J., Chen, YY., Ginter, P.S. (eds) A Comprehensive Guide to Core Needle Biopsies of the Breast . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05532-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05532-4_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05531-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05532-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation