Search

Context Patients choosing to retain the nipple when undergoing therapeutic or prophylactic mastectomy are at risk for cancers arising at that site. Objective To identify cases of invasive carcinoma arising within the nipple and to investigate their clinical, imaging, biologic, and staging features. Design Carcinomas were identified by prospective review of surgical and consult cases at 4 hospitals. Results The 24 patients identified presented with symptoms related to the nipple. Mammography did not detect the cancer in most cases. Ten patients (42%) had skin changes from ductal carcinoma in situ involving nipple skin (Paget disease), with small foci of invasion into the dermis, and 6 of those 10 carcinomas (60%) stained positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). The remaining 14 patients (58%) presented with a nipple mass or with skin changes. These were larger invasive carcinomas of both ductal and lobular types. Only 2 of those 14 carcinomas (14%) were HER2 + . Three of 15 patients (20%) undergoing lymph node biopsy had a single metastasis. No patients have had recurrent disease. Conclusions Rare, invasive, primary nipple carcinomas typically present as subtle nipple thickening or an exudative crust on the skin. Imaging studies are often nonrevealing. A variety of histologic and biologic types of carcinomas occur, similar to cancers arising deeper in the breast. Although the carcinomas invaded into the dermis, some with skin ulceration, the likelihood of lymph node metastasis was no higher than carcinomas of similar sizes. Patients who choose to preserve their nipple(s) should be aware of the possibility of breast cancer arising at that site and to bring any observed changes to the attention of their health care providers.

Context: -A review of amended pathology reports provides valuable information regarding defects in the surgical pathology process., Objective: -To review amended breast pathology reports with emphasis placed on interpretative errors and their mechanisms of detection., Design: -All amended pathology reports for breast surgical specimens for a 5-year period at a large academic medical center were retrospectively identified and classified based on an established taxonomy., Results: -Of 12 228 breast pathology reports, 122 amended reports were identified. Most (88 cases; 72%) amendments were due to noninterpretative errors, including 58 report defects, 12 misidentifications, and 3 specimen defects. A few (34 cases; 27.9%) were classified as misinterpretations, including 14 major diagnostic changes (11.5% of all amendments). Among major changes, there were cases of missed microinvasion or small foci of invasion, missed micrometastasis, atypical ductal hyperplasia overcalled as ductal carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ involving sclerosing adenosis mistaken for invasive carcinoma, lymphoma mistaken for invasive carcinoma, and amyloidosis misdiagnosed as fat necrosis. Nine major changes were detected at interpretation of receptor studies and were not associated with clinical consequences. Three cases were associated with clinical consequences, and of note, the same pathologist interpreted the corresponding receptor studies., Conclusions: -Review of amended reports was a useful method for identifying error frequencies, types, and methods of detection. Any time that a case is revisited for ancillary studies or other reasons, it is an opportunity for the surgical pathologist to reconsider one's own or another's diagnosis.