4.3 Review

The enigmatic nature of apocrine breast lesions

Journal

VIRCHOWS ARCHIV
Volume 448, Issue 5, Pages 525-531

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00428-005-0095-z

Keywords

breast; apocrine epithelium; GCDFP-15; fibrocystic changes; apocrine carcinoma; molecular alterations

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epithelial cells of fetal breast glandular structures, at the third trimester of pregnancy (28 weeks), produce GCDFP-15, in the absence of specific apocrine morphology. Apocrine epithelium of the breast may be a normal process of differentiation rather than a result of metaplasia, and it has been demonstrated that it is estrogen-receptor, progesterone-receptor and bcl-2 negative, but androgen-receptor (AR) positive. The significance of AR expression in apocrine epithelium is uncertain. Apocrine epithelium is seen in a wide spectrum of breast entities, ranging from benign lesions to invasive carcinoma. Breast cancer accounts 32% of all cancer cases among women and is the most common type of cancer in women. Little is known about breast carcinogenesis. Widely, it is accepted that breast cancer, like most other type of cancer, is being developed through the accumulation of genetic aberrations. Apocrine epithelium may reflect instability of the breast epithelium, creating an environment favouring further oncogenic alterations. In the last decade, several lines of evidence support the idea that some breast benign epithelial apocrine lesions are clonal lesions and may be considered as truly pre-malignant or precursors of breast carcinoma. Apocrine changes in many cases do not present any diagnostic difficulty; on the other hand, apocrine proliferations with cytologic atypia can be particularly difficult and challenging. The purpose of this study is to collect and highlight the areas of consensus in the literature as well as the controversial areas concerning the apocrine epithelium of the breast.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available