ABSTRACT
Objective:
Invasive breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease group that has different biological and pathological features, and characterized with different clinical behavior, treatment results, and consequences. The rarity of most specific neoplasies does not allow large or randomized studies to determine optimal treatment. With this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical and pathological features and treatment options and results of rare breast carcinoma patients that followed and treated in our clinic.
Methods:
Files of 1280 breast cancer patients admitted to our center between years 2000 and 2016 were evaluated. From these patients, who have rare breast carcinoma subtypes were included and patients with pathological diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma were excluded. Seventy-three patients that included in the study were analyzed retrospectively in terms of age, menopausal status, family history, tumor-lymph node-metastasis stage, histological grade, hormone receptor level, human epidermal growth factor receptor2 expression, operation type and overall survival (OS).
Results:
Eight histological subtypes of breast tumors were evaluated. Significant difference wasn’t found between groups in terms of mean age of the patients. In terms of histological subtypes, the most eldest patients were in papillary group, the youngest patients were in tubular group. The mean tumor diameter was also significantly different between groups (p=0.02). The mean age of the patients diagnosed with tubular and mucinous type breast carcinomas were younger than the one reported in literature and the mean tumor diameter was also larger in these tumors. Ratio of patients diagnosed at advanced stages was high (43%). While mucinous and tubular carcinomas were the histological subtypes with the best prognosis, the shortest OS was in primary breast sarcoma and neuroendocrine carcinoma group.
Conclusion:
Rare breast cancers are a heterogeneous malignity group with different behavior and prognosis. Our results, except some cases, were generally concordant with the data obtained from other studies. These exceptions may be related to race, regional factors, different pathological evaluation, and environmental factors. Nevertheless, comprehensive clinical studies are required because of the rare occurrence these tumors.
Keywords:
Breast carcinoma, histological types, rare breast tumors
References
1Yerushalmi R, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA. Breast carcinoma--raretypes: review of the literatüre. Ann Oncol 2009;20:1763-70.
2Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors: Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press Breast Cancer Research 2004;6:133.
3Northridge ME, Rhoads GG,Wartenberg D, et al. The importance of histologic type on breast cancer survival. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:283-90.
4Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badev S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2784-95.
5Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:118-45.
6Di Saverio S, Gutierrez J, Avisar E. A retrospective review with long term follow up of 11,400 cases of pure mucinous breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;111:541-7.
7Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Libby A, Allred DC, Elledge RM. Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1442-8.
8Scopsi L, Andreola S, Pilotti S, Bufalino R, Baldini MT, Testori A, et al. Mucinous carcinoma of the breast. A clinicopathologic, histochemical, and immunocytochemical study with special reference to neuroendocrine differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18:702-11.
9Martinez SR, Beal SH, Canter RJ, Chen SL, Khatri VP, Bold RJ. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: a population-based perspective. Med Oncol 2011;28:738-44.
10Aksoy A, Odabas H, Kaya S, Bozkurt O, Degirmenci M, Topçu TO, et al. Hormone receptor status and survival of medullary breast cancer patients. A Turkish cohort. Saudi Med J 2017;38:156-62.
11Mateo AM, Pezzi TA, Sundermeyer M, Kelley CA, Klimberg VS, Pezzi CM. Atypical medullary carcinoma of the breast has similar prognostic factors and survival to typical medullary breast carcinoma: 3,976 cases from the National Cancer Data Base. J Surg Oncol 2016;114:533-6.
12Chu Z, Lin H, Liang X, Huang R, Zhan Q, Jiang J, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of medullary breast carcinoma: A retrospective study of 117 cases. Plos One 2014;9:e111493.
13Roswn P. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma. Roswn’s Breast Pathology. Philadelphia, PA. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2104:763-74.
14Chen L, Fan Y, Lang RG, Guao XJ, Sun YL, Cui LF, et al. Breast carcinoma with micropapillary features: clinicopathologic study and long-term follow-up of 100 cases, Int J Surg Pathol 2008;16:155-63.
15Zekioglu O, Erhan Y, Ciris M, Bayramoglu H, Ozdemir N. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: high incidence of lymph node metastasis with extranodal extension and its immunohistochemical profile compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. Histopathology 2004;44:18-23.
16Luna-More S, Casquero S, Perez-Mellado A, Rius F, Weill B, Gornemann I. Importance of estrogen receptors for the behavior of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Review of 68 cases with follow-up of 54. Pathol Res Pract 2000;196:35-9.
17Vo T, Xing Y, Meric Bernstam F, Mirza N, Vlastos G, Symmans WF, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with mucinous, medullary, tubular, and invasive ductal carcinomas after lumpectomy. Am J Surg 2007;194:527-31.
18Kader HA, Jackson J, Mates D, Andersen S, Hayes M, Olivotto IA. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: a population-based study of nodal metastases at presentation and of patterns of relapse, Breast J 2001;7:8-13.
19Surov A, Hotzhausen HJ, Ruschke K, Spielmann RP. Primary breast sarcoma: prevalence, clinical signs, and radiological features. Acta Radiol 2011;52:597-601.
20McGowan TS, Cummings BJ, O’Sullivan B, Catton CN, Miller N, Panzeralla N. An analysis of 78 breast sarcoma patients without distant metastases at presentation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46:383-90.
21Fields RC, Aft RL, Gillanders WE, Elberlein TJ, Margenthaler JA. Treatment and outcomes of patients with primary breast sarcoma. Am J Surg 2008;196:559-61.
22Tse GM, Tan PH, Putti TC, Lui PC, Chaiwun B, Law BK. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathological review. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:1079-83.
23Hennessy BT, Krishnamurthy S, Giordano S, Buchholz TA, Kau SW, Duan Z, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the breast. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7827-35.
24Sapino A, Righi L, Cassoni P, Papotti M, Pietribiasi F, Bussolati G. Expression of the neuroendocrine phenotype in carcinomas of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol 2000;17:127-37.
25Bernstein L, Deapen D, Ross RK. The descriptive epidemiology of malignant cystosarcoma phyllodes tumors of the breast. Cancer 1993;71:3020-4.
26Tan H, Zhang S, Liu H, Peng W, Li R, Gu Y, et al. Imaging findings in phyllodes tumors of the breast. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:62-9.
27Chen WH, Cheng SP, Tzen CY, Yang TL, Jeng KS, Liu CL, et al. Surgical treatment of phyllodes tumors of the breast: retrospective review of 172 cases. J Surg Oncol 2005;91:185-94.
28Ozmen V, Boylu S, Ok E, Canturk NZ, Celik V, Kapkac M, et al. Factors affecting breast cancer treatment delay in Turkey: a study from Turkish Federation of Breast Diseases Societies. Eur J Public Health 2015;25:9-14.
