Cytologic findings of atypical adenosis of the breast. A case report.

BACKGROUND: Atypical apocrine adenosis, a well-described histopathologic entity, can sometimes be misdiagnosed as carcinoma. Apocrine cells can also appear atypical in cytopathology and be mistaken for carcinoma. Occasional case reports describe false positive cases due to the presence of apocrine cells in a few cases of radial scars and atypical apocrine metaplasia and in a degenerated cyst. CASE: A 37-year-old female underwent ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of an ill-defined breast nodule. The aspirate showed clusters and single cells containing abundant granular to focally vacuolated cytoplasm; enlarged, pleomorphic nuclei with irregular nuclear membranes; granular chromatin; and prominent nucleoli. These cells were distinct from and larger than the surrounding ductal and myoepithelial cells. Excision showed a nodular area of atypical apocrine adenosis adjacent to previous biopsy changes, correlating with the cytologic findings. CONCLUSION: Atypical apocrine adenosis can mimic carcinoma in histopathology and cytopathology. One should be cautious when reviewing apocrine cells in cytology, given their atypical features, especially their single, dispersed nature. However, the presence of accompanying benign cellular elements supports a benign diagnosis. Surgical biopsy should be recommended based on the cytologic findings.

The significance of family history for patients with carcinoma of the breast.

BACKGROUND: Since the risk of carcinoma of the breast is increased in women with a family history of the disease, new primary carcinomas of the breast may be increased after treatment. Women with several relatives with carcinoma of the breast are thought to be at higher risk of having a second primary carcinoma of the breast develop and mastectomy is more frequently recommended. STUDY DESIGN: The computerized registry of the Mount Sinai Medical Center Breast Service was used to identify 1,337 patients with complete information concerning family history. Three hundred fifty-nine patients with a family history of carcinoma of the breast were compared with women with no family history. RESULTS: Compared with patients with no family history of carcinoma of the breast, patients with a family history of carcinoma of the breast were significantly younger (54.0 versus 55.8 years of age, p < 0.01), were significantly more likely to have used oral contraceptives (26 versus 13 percent, p < 0.001), had significantly more ductal carcinoma in situ (10 versus 4 percent, p < 0.01), and were significantly more often treated with breast conservation (42 versus 31 percent, p < 0.001). Simultaneous contralateral carcinoma of the breast was diagnosed more frequently in patients with a family history (3 versus 1 percent, p < 0.025), but metachronous contralateral carcinomas were not increased. In comparing the two groups, there were no significant differences in proportion premenopausal, parity, use of postmenopausal hormones, tumor size, tumor differentiation, nodal involvement, TNM stage, estrogen receptor status, or use of adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, or tamoxifen. Complete five-year follow-up evaluation for 748 patients, 179 with a family history, found no differences in local, distant, or disease-free survival rates for mastectomy or breast conservation in relation to family history. Outcome for patients with first-degree affected relatives and those with more than one affected relative was the same as those with no family history. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that women with a family history of carcinoma of the breast should be treated no differently than women with no family history.