Background and Objectives: To characterize both atypical hyperplasia (AH) and the malignancies typically present at open surgical biopsy in women diagnosed with AH by stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB). Methods Patients with AH diagnosed by SCNB were advised to undergo surgical biopsy to rule out an associated malignancy. Mammography findings, pathology reports and follow‐up data were analyzed. Results AH was identified by SCNB in 38 of 893 (4.3%) patients. Carcinoma was identified in 12 of 33 (36.4%) patients who went on to surgical biopsy. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was present in 11 of the 12 patients with malignancy. There were no characteristic mammographic findings which would identify patients with carcinoma. Conclusions When SCNB returns a diagnosis of AH there is a substantial risk of an associated malignancy in the breast. There appear to be no definitive criteria to distinguish which patients harbor a malignancy, and surgical biopsy should always serve as an adjunct diagnostic procedure. J. Surg. Oncol. 1998;67:168–173. Published 1998 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This case describes a unique complication of silicone breast implantation that is previously undocumented. Internal mammary silicone lymphadenopathy mimicking breast cancer recurrence represents an important new clinical entity. The diagnosis and management of this clinical enigma are challenging. In our patient, videothoracoscopy proved to be minimally invasive and allowed complete resection of the entire chain of pathologic nodes. Explantation of the silicone prostheses and complete capsulectomy are indicated. Light microscopy alone can suggest the diagnosis of silicone lymphadenopathy. Infrared spectral analysis can be a helpful adjunct to allow an unequivocal diagnosis.

Background and Objectives:To characterize both atypical hyperplasia (AH) and the malignancies typically present at open surgical biopsy in women diagnosed with AH by stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB). Methods: Patients with AH diagnosed by SCNB were advised to undergo surgical biopsy to rule out an associated malignancy. Mammography findings, pathology reports and follow-up data were analyzed. Results: AH was identified by SCNB in 38 of 893 (4.3%) patients. Carcinoma was identified in 12 of 33 (36.4%) patients who went on to surgical biopsy. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was present in 11 of the 12 patients with malignancy. There were no characteristic mammographic findings which would identify patients with carcinoma. Conclusions: When SCNB returns a diagnosis of AH there is a substantial risk of an associated malignancy in the breast. There appear to be no definitive criteria to distinguish which patients harbor a malignancy, and surgical biopsy should always serve as an adjunct diagnostic procedure.

Patients at high risk for inherited breast and/or ovarian cancer are frequently encountered in all medical specialties. Department of Defense, Health Affairs funding as part of the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Program was used to develop a comprehensive program for the identification, counseling, genetic testing, and long-term follow-up of such high-risk patients. This article reports the recommendations for high-risk patient management based on 4 years of evaluation and care, including discussions of the approach to counseling, indications for genetic testing, post-testing counseling, patient surveillance with examination, imagining, and laboratory testing, and suggested options for surgical and chemoprophylaxis as well as lifestyle modifications.

The Department of Defense Familial Breast/Ovarian Cancer Research Project has offered genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 on a research basis to patients meeting specific diagnostic criteria, with risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations calculated based on the Couch model. In 2.5 years, 250 patients were evaluated and 101 patients met criteria requirements, including 33 who met criteria in more than one category. Ninety patients elected to undergo DNA testing. In this group of 90 patients, 14 mutations (15.5%) and 16 unclassified variants (17.7%) were identified. The most common inclusion criteria were onset of breast/ovarian cancer before age 45 years (n = 32) and onset of breast/ovarian cancer before age 45 years with strong family history (n = 21). However, when number of mutations and unclassified variants found were compared separately across all diagnostic criteria (including those of more than one capacity) using the chi 2 statistic, no significant differences were seen among the categories to suggest that one criterion was more predictive of mutations or variants than another. Couch risk values for patients with mutations showed a mean of 14% and ranged from 3.2 to 43.5% (range for all patients, 1.2-69.7%). These findings emphasize the importance of using multiple diagnostic criteria and suggest that a Couch risk value of > 3% may be useful in selecting patients for testing. The data also underscore the necessity of genetic counseling in the testing process, particularly given the large number of unclassified variants diagnosed and their uncertain status for disease predisposition.