Breast carcinoma exhibiting predominantly clear cytoplasm due to glycogen
Diagnostic Criteria
At least 90% of the neoplastic cells have abundant clear cytoplasm due to glycogen
PAS positive, diastase sensitive in most cases
Processing may remove glycogen
Minor component of eosinophilic granular cytoplasm may be present
May suggest apocrine differentiation
Scant amounts of intracellular mucin may be seen in some cases
Growth pattern is usually that of usual infiltrating ductal carcinoma
Other patterns reported include lobular, tubular and medullary
Intraductal clear cell component may be present
Richard L Kempson MD
Robert V Rouse MD
Department of Pathology
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford CA 94305-5342
Original posting:: May 1, 2006
Supplemental studies
Immunohistology
PAS positive, diastase sensitive, demonstrates presence of glycogen
Staining may be variable due to solubility of glycogen
Fat stain negative
Demonstration of myoepithelial cells can confirm the in situ nature of a process while their absence supports invasion
We prefer to use both p63 and calponin on problematic cases
A variety of markers have been used for myoepithelial cells:
Marker
Sensitivity
Specificity
Calponin
Excellent
Very good
p63
Excellent
Excellent
Smooth muscle myosin heavy chain
Good
Excellent
CD10 (CALLA)
Good
Good
High molecular weight cytokeratin
Very good
Poor
Maspin
Good
Poor
S100
Good
Very poor
Actin
Good
Very poor
E-cadherin appears to be a sensitive marker of ductal differentiation vs lobular differentiation; its utility in borderline lesions is currently uncertain
At least some glycogen rich carcinomas have been found to be ER and PR positive, but GCDFP15 has not been tested on a series of them and its utility is unknown
Immunologic markers useful for identification of breast carcinoma
GCDFP15 (BRST2)
Estrogen Receptor
Progesterone Receptor
PAX8
Infiltrating ductal carcinoma
60-70%
75%
50-60%
0%
Infiltrating lobular carcinoma
60-70%
>95%
80%
0%
Lung adenocarcinoma
0-1%
<5%
<5%
0%
Ovarian adenocarcinoma
1-5%
50-100%
40-90%
90-100%
Endometrioid adenocarcinoma
negative
70%
70%
GI adenocarcinoma
negative
<5%
1-10%
0%
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma
negative
negative
0-5%
0%
Cholangiocarcinoma
negative
negative
30%
Thyroid carcinoma
negative
20%
30%
100%
Sweat gland and salivary gland neoplasms may also be positive for GCDFP15, ER and PR
Prostatic adenocarcinoma may be positive for GCDFP15
CK7 and CK20 have not been tested on a series of glycogen ricih carcinomas, thus their utility is unknown
No clear difference in behavior from usual invasive breast carcinoma
Grading / Staging / Report
Grading
Bloom-Scarff-Richardson grading scheme is most widely used
Total score and each of the three components should be reported
Based on invasive area only
Tubule formation
Score
>75% tubules
1
10-75% tubules
2
<10% tubules
3
Nuclear pleomorphism (most anaplastic area)
Score
Small, regular, uniform nuclei, uniform chromatin
1
Moderate varibility in size and shape, vesicular, with visible nucleoli
2
Marked variation, vesicular, often with multiple nucleoli
3
Mitotic figure count per 10 40x fields (depends on area of field, see key below)
Score
0.096 mm2
0.12 mm2
0.16 mm2
0.27 mm2
0.31 mm2
0-3
0-4
0-5
0-9
0-11
1
4-7
5-8
6-10
10-19
12-22
2
>7
>8
>10
>19
>22
3
Olympus BX50, BX40 or BH2 or AO or Nikon with 15x eyepiece: 0.096 mm2
AO with 10x eyepiece: 0.12 mm2
Nikon or Olympus with 10x eyepiece: 0.16 mm2
Leitz Ortholux: 0.27 mm2
Leitz Diaplan: 0.31 mm2
Mitotic count figures based on original data presented for Leitz Ortholux by Elston and Ellis 1991, with modifications based on pubished and measured areas of view
Evaluate regions of most active growth, usually in cellular areas at periphery
We employ strict criteria for identification of mitotic figures
Sum of above three components
Overall grade
3-5 points
Grade I (well differentiated)
6-7 points
Grade II (moderately differentiated)
8-9 points
Grade III (poorly differentiated)
Staging
TNM staging is the most widely used scheme for breast carcinomas but is not universally employed
Critical staging criteria for regional lymph nodes
Isolated tumor cell clusters
Usually identified by immunohistochemistry
Term also applies if cells identified by close examination of H&E stain
No cluster may be greater than 0.2 mm
Multiple such clusters may be present in the same or other nodes
Micrometastasis
Greater than 0.2 mm, none greater than 2.0 mm
Metastasis
At least one carcinoma focus over 2.0 mm
If one node qualifies as >2.0 mm, count all other nodes even with smaller foci as involved
Critical numbers of involved nodes: 1-3, 4-9 and 10 and over
Note extranodal extension
Report
Excisions: the following are important elements that must be addressed in the report for infiltrative breast carcinomas
Grade
Total score and individual components
Size of neoplasm
Give 3 dimensions or greatest dimension
Critical cutoffs occur at 0.5 cm and at 2 cm
Margins of resection
Measure and report the actual distance of both invasive and in situ carcinoma
Angiolymphatic invasion
Indicate if confined to tumor mass, outside tumor mass or in dermis
(Extensive DCIS is not currently felt to be a significant predictor of behavior)
Results of special studies performed for diagnosis
Results of prognostic special studies performed
ER, PR, Proliferation marker, Her2neu
If studies were performed on a prior specimen, refer to that report and give results
Needle or core biopsies
Provisional grade may be given but may defer to excision for definitive grade
Presence of absence of angiolymphatic invasion
Results of special studies performed for diagnosis
Results of prognostic special studies if performed
ER, PR, Proliferation marker, Her2neu
State if studies are deferred for a later excision specimen
Rosen PP, Oberman HA . Tumors of the Mammary Gland, Atlas of Tumor Pathology, AFIP Third Series, Fascicle 7, 1993
Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403-10.
Kuroda H, Sakamoto G, Ohnisi K, Itoyama S. Clinical and pathological features of glycogen-rich clear cell carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer. 2005;12(3):189-95.
Hayes MM, Seidman JD, Ashton MA. Glycogen-rich clear cell carcinoma of the breast. A clinicopathologic study of 21 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1995 Aug;19(8):904-11.
Toikkanen S, Joensuu H. Glycogen-rich clear-cell carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathologic and flow cytometric study. Hum Pathol. 1991 Jan;22(1):81-3.
Hull MT, Warfel KA. Glycogen-rich clear cell carcinomas of the breast. A clinicopathologic and ultrastructural study. Am J Surg Pathol. 1986 Aug;10(8):553-9.
Fisher ER, Tavares J, Bulatao IS, Sass R, Fisher B. Glycogen-rich, clear cell breast cancer: with comments concerning other clear cell variants. Hum Pathol. 1985 Nov;16(11):1085-90.
