A-Yong Cao1, Min He, Liang Huang, Zhi-Ming Shao, Gen-Hong Di. 1. Breast Cancer Institute, Cancer Centre/Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai 200032, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have addressed the biological features of medullary breast carcinoma (MBC) in the context of clinical outcomes. We sought to compare the baseline demographics, standard pathologic factors and long-term clinical outcomes between MBC and infiltrating ductal carcinoma-not otherwise specified (IDC-NOS) using a large database. METHODS: A total of 2,202 cases with pure IDC-NOS and 188 cases with typical MBC meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. The clinical and biological features, the overall survival (OS) and recurrence/metastasis-free survival (RFS) were compared for both groups. RESULTS: There were a higher proportion of patients diagnosed prior to 40 years of age in the MBC group compared to the IDC-NOS group. MBC cases demonstrated less aggressive tumor features such as lower tumor stage, smaller tumor size and a lower proportion of nodal involvement than IDC-NOS; however, immunohistochemical staining revealed that MBC displayed the triple-negative phenotype more often than IDC-NOS cases (40.4% versus 26.2%; P <0.001). Although the clinical behavior of MBC was not commensurate with its pathologic features, women diagnosed with MBC had a lower frequency of recurrence/metastasis (P = 0.032) and death (P = 0.042) than those with IDC-NOS, and the 10-year OS and RFS were significantly higher for MBC (91% and 74%) compared to IDC-NOS (81% and 64%). Moreover, multivariate analysis revealed that TNM stage was a statistically significant factor for survival. CONCLUSIONS: MBC in Chinese women demonstrated less aggressive behavior and better prognosis than IDC-NOS. This favorable outcome was maintained after 10 years.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have addressed the biological features of medullary breast carcinoma (MBC) in the context of clinical outcomes. We sought to compare the baseline demographics, standard pathologic factors and long-term clinical outcomes between MBC and infiltrating ductal carcinoma-not otherwise specified (IDC-NOS) using a large database. METHODS: A total of 2,202 cases with pure IDC-NOS and 188 cases with typical MBC meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. The clinical and biological features, the overall survival (OS) and recurrence/metastasis-free survival (RFS) were compared for both groups. RESULTS: There were a higher proportion of patients diagnosed prior to 40 years of age in the MBC group compared to the IDC-NOS group. MBC cases demonstrated less aggressive tumor features such as lower tumor stage, smaller tumor size and a lower proportion of nodal involvement than IDC-NOS; however, immunohistochemical staining revealed that MBC displayed the triple-negative phenotype more often than IDC-NOS cases (40.4% versus 26.2%; P <0.001). Although the clinical behavior of MBC was not commensurate with its pathologic features, women diagnosed with MBC had a lower frequency of recurrence/metastasis (P = 0.032) and death (P = 0.042) than those with IDC-NOS, and the 10-year OS and RFS were significantly higher for MBC (91% and 74%) compared to IDC-NOS (81% and 64%). Moreover, multivariate analysis revealed that TNM stage was a statistically significant factor for survival. CONCLUSIONS:MBC in Chinese women demonstrated less aggressive behavior and better prognosis than IDC-NOS. This favorable outcome was maintained after 10 years.
Authors: P de Cremoux; A V Salomon; S Liva; R Dendale; B Bouchind'homme; E Martin; X Sastre-Garau; H Magdelenat; A Fourquet; T Soussi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-04-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ha Vu-Nishino; Fattaneh A Tavassoli; Willam A Ahrens; Bruce G Haffty Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jocelyne Jacquemier; François Bertucci; Pascal Finetti; Benjamin Esterni; Emmanuelle Charafe-Jauffret; Marie-Laure Thibult; Gilles Houvenaeghel; Benoit Van den Eynde; Daniel Birnbaum; Daniel Olive; Luc Xerri Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Thao Vo; Yan Xing; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Nadeem Mirza; Georges Vlastos; W Fraser Symmans; George H Perkins; Thomas A Buchholz; Gildy V Babiera; Henry M Kuerer; Isabelle Bedrosian; Jeri S Akins; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ruliang Xu; Helen Feiner; Peng Li; Herman Yee; Giorgio Inghirami; Yara Delgado; Mary Ann Perle Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: F Khomsi; W Ben Bachouche; H Bouzaiene; R Chargui; J Ben Hassouna; M H Mtaalah; T Dhiab; M Hechiche; F Benna; H Boussen; A Gamoudi; K Rahal Journal: Gynecol Obstet Fertil Date: 2007-10-31
Authors: Michał P Budzik; Maciej T Sobieraj; Maria Sobol; Janusz Patera; Aleksandra Czerw; Andrzej Deptała; Anna M Badowska-Kozakiewicz Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Tengku Muhammad Hanis; Najib Majdi Yaacob; Suhaily Mohd Hairon; Sarimah Abdullah; Noorfariza Nordin; Noor Hashimah Abdullah; Mohd Faiz Md Ariffin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 3.295