Spindle cell proliferations of the breast are a heterogeneous group of lesions ranging from benign or reactive lesions to aggressive malignant neoplasms. Diagnosis on core biopsy can be particularly challenging as lesions displaying different lineages associated with variable outcomes share overlapping morphologies (scar vs. fibromatosis-like metaplastic carcinoma) whereas individual entities can exhibit a large variety of appearances (myofibroblastoma). In this review, lesions are grouped into lineage, when possible, including those showing fibroblastic/myofibroblastic differentiation, ranging from entities that require no additional management, such as scar and nodular fasciitis, to those with unpredictable clinical outcomes such as fibromatosis and solitary fibrous tumor or locally aggressive behavior such as dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. The review of low-grade vascular lesions includes atypical vascular lesion and low-grade angiosarcoma. Also discussed are various adipocytic lesions ranging from lipoma to liposarcoma, and rare smooth muscle and neural entities more commonly encountered in locations outside the breast, such as leiomyoma, neurofibroma, schwannoma, or granular cell tumor. Optimal histological evaluation of these entities merges clinical and radiologic data with morphology and ancillary testing. We present our approach to immunohistochemical and other ancillary testing and highlight issues in pathology correlation with imaging. Recent updates in the management of breast spindle cell lesions are addressed. In a well-sampled lesion with radiographic concordance, the core biopsy diagnosis reliably guides management and we advocate the inclusion of management recommendations in the pathology report. Precise characterization using up to date guidelines is important to identify a subset of patients who may safely avoid unnecessary surgical procedures. A multidisciplinary approach with close collaboration with our clinical colleagues is emphasized.

No abstract

Prostatic duct adenocarcinoma, characterized by pseudostratified columnar epithelium, has historically been considered invasive carcinoma, although it may commonly have an intraductal component. Usual (acinar) intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is a noninvasive high-risk lesion typically associated with high-grade, high-stage prostate cancer. Whereas there have been rare biopsy studies of pure acinar IDC-P or IDC-P associated with only low-grade carcinoma, there have been no analogous series of IDC-P with cribriform or papillary ductal morphology on biopsy unassociated with invasive high-grade carcinoma. We identified 14 patients with biopsies showing IDC-P with ductal morphology, defined as prostatic duct adenocarcinoma confined to glands/ducts with immunohistochemically proven retention of basal cells. Our series includes 12 patients with pure IDC-P and 2 patients with concurrent low-volume Grade Group 1 invasive cancer in unassociated cores. Three patients underwent radical prostatectomy: 2/3 had high-grade cancer in their resection specimen (Grade Group 3, Grade Group 5), including 1 with advanced stage and nodal metastases; 1/3 had Grade Group 1 organ-confined carcinoma and spatially distinct IDC-P with ductal morphology. Five men had only follow-up biopsies: 2/5 had cancer (Grade Group 2, Grade Group 4); 1/5 had IDC-P (on 2 repeat biopsies); and 2/5 had benign transurethral resection of the prostate. In all 5 cases with invasive cancer, the invasive portion was comprised purely of acinar morphology; no invasive ductal component was identified. Five patients did not have follow-up biopsies and were treated with radiation therapy±androgen deprivation. One patient had no follow-up information. In an analogous situation to acinar IDC-P, we propose that rarely there is a precursor form of ductal adenocarcinoma that can exist without concurrent invasive high-grade carcinoma and propose the term “IDC-P with ductal morphology,” consistent with the terminology for acinar prostate adenocarcinoma. Until more evidence is accumulated, we recommend reporting and treating patients with IDC-P with ductal morphology in a manner analogous to those with acinar IDC-P. As with pure IDC-P with acinar morphology, we would also recommend not grading pure IDC-P with ductal morphology. Finally, we propose a new addition to the diagnostic criteria of IDC-P to include intraductal lesions with ductal morphology consisting of papillary fronds or cribriform lesions lined by cytologically atypical pseudostratified epithelium.

No abstract