Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; Diagnostic Pathology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan.
Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Pathology. 2022 Feb;54(1):20-31. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2021.09.008. Epub 2021 Dec 3.
Despite the importance of atypia in diagnosing and classifying breast lesions, the definition of atypia varies depending on the context, with a lack of consistent and objective criteria for assessment. Atypia in breast pathology may be cytonuclear and/or architectural with different applications and implications. Cytonuclear atypia is used to assist the distinction of various intraductal epithelial proliferative lesions including usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH) versus atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to grade DCIS. In invasive carcinoma, nuclear atypia (i.e., nuclear pleomorphism) is a component of the histological grading system. Stromal cell cytonuclear atypia is one of the key features used to distinguish fibroadenoma from phyllodes tumour (PT) and to classify PT as benign, borderline or malignant. Similarly, cytonuclear atypia is used in the evaluation of myoepithelial cell alterations in the breast. Architectural atypia is used to differentiate flat epithelial atypia (FEA) from ADH or DCIS. In addition to the inherent subjectivity in the interpretation of atypia, which presents as a morphological continuum reflecting a biological spectrum, the lack of standardisation in defining atypia augments diagnostic discordance in breast pathology, with potential implications for patient management. Evidence to date suggests that the traditional criteria used to assess atypia may require modification in the era of digital pathology primary diagnosis. This review aims to provide a comprehensive review of atypia in breast pathology with reference to inconsistencies, challenges and limitations.
尽管非典型性在诊断和分类乳腺病变中很重要,但非典型性的定义因上下文而异,缺乏评估的一致和客观标准。乳腺病理学中的非典型性可能是细胞核和/或结构的,具有不同的应用和意义。细胞核非典型性用于辅助区分各种导管内上皮增生性病变,包括普通导管增生(UDH)与非典型导管增生(ADH)或导管原位癌(DCIS),并对 DCIS 进行分级。在浸润性癌中,核非典型性(即核多形性)是组织学分级系统的一个组成部分。间质细胞核非典型性是用于区分纤维腺瘤与叶状肿瘤(PT)和对 PT 进行良性、交界性或恶性分类的关键特征之一。同样,细胞核非典型性用于评估乳腺中肌上皮细胞的改变。结构非典型性用于区分平坦上皮非典型性(FEA)与 ADH 或 DCIS。除了在解释非典型性时存在固有的主观性,这种主观性表现为反映生物学谱的形态连续体之外,在定义非典型性方面缺乏标准化也增加了乳腺病理学中的诊断不一致性,可能对患者管理产生影响。迄今为止的证据表明,在数字病理学主要诊断时代,评估非典型性的传统标准可能需要修改。本综述旨在全面回顾乳腺病理学中的非典型性,参考其不一致性、挑战和局限性。