Literature DB >> 1325408

Phyllodes tumor: clinicopathologic review of 60 patients and flow cytometric analysis in 30 patients.

P A Keelan1, J L Myers, L E Wold, J A Katzmann, D J Gibney.   

Abstract

We reviewed 66 phyllodes tumors of the breast from 60 patients. Our patients included 59 women and one man ranging in age from 16 to 72 years. Fifty patients presented for primary treatment of newly diagnosed breast masses, nine presented with recurrent tumors, and one presented with soft tissue metastases 9 years after bilateral subcutaneous mastectomies and multiple chest wall recurrences of phyllodes tumor. After 0.3 to 53.2 years (mean, 15.5 years) of follow-up, 26 (43.3%) patients are free of disease without recurrence, 26 (43.3%) patients are dead of other (17 patients) or unknown (nine patients) causes, four (6.7%) patients had locally recurrent tumor 0.7 to 2.9 years after lumpectomy and are free of disease 3 months to 12 years after re-excision or simple mastectomy, two (3.3%) patients are lost to follow-up, and two (3.3%) patients died with metastatic disease 1.8 and 7 years after diagnosis. Histologic features and flow cytometric analysis showed no correlation with outcome. Fifty-six breast tumors were biphasic and nine were purely stromal tumors. Twenty-six (47%) biphasic tumors showed stromal overgrowth. Tumor margins were pushing in 20 (39%) and infiltrative in 29 (61%) of 49 evaluable cases. Twenty-one tumors were highly cellular and 17 showed cytologic atypia. Necrosis was identified in 16 tumors. Mitotic rates ranged from 0/10 high-power fields to 48/10 high-power fields. Twenty-four diploid, six aneuploid, three tetraploid, and one polyploid tumor were identified by flow cytometry. S-phase fractions tended to be higher in nondiploid tumors. Neither DNA content nor S-phase fraction correlated with outcome. Our results indicate that most mammary phyllodes tumors, including purely stromal tumors, behave as low-grade, nonmetastasizing neoplasms. Neither histologic evaluation nor DNA content provides reliable clues concerning the natural history of an individual tumor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1325408     DOI: 10.1016/0046-8177(92)90268-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  7 in total

1.  Flow Cytometric Analysis to Assess the Malignant Potential of Phyllodes Tumor.

Authors: 
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  1994-12-30       Impact factor: 4.239

2.  Effects of adjuvant radiotherapy on borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shiyan Zeng; Xindan Zhang; Dejuan Yang; Xiaoyi Wang; Guosheng Ren
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-06

3.  Proliferating activity in differential diagnosis of benign phyllodes tumor and cellular fibroadenomas: is it helpful?

Authors:  R Kaya; H E Pestereli; G Erdogan; K H Gülkesen; S Karaveli
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.201

4.  Bilateral and multifocal phyllodes tumours of the breast: A case report.

Authors:  Shane Kf Seal; Urve Kuusk; Peter A Lennox
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2010

Review 5.  Optimising preoperative diagnosis in phyllodes tumour of the breast.

Authors:  R K Jacklin; P F Ridgway; P Ziprin; V Healy; D Hadjiminas; A Darzi
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-02-06       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Combination of shear-wave elastography and color Doppler: Feasible method to avoid unnecessary breast excision of fibroepithelial lesions diagnosed by core needle biopsy.

Authors:  Ga Ram Kim; Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko; Soo Yeon Hahn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A giant phyllodes tumor causing ulceration and severe breast disfigurement: case report and review of giant phyllodes.

Authors:  Mohammed A Sbeih; Ryan Engdahl; Marina Landa; Oreoluwa Ojutiku; Norman Morrison; Hector Depaz
Journal:  J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2015-12-24
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.