| Literature DB >> 25382741 |
Yu-Ting Wu, Shou-Tung Chen, Chih-Jung Chen, Yao-Lung Kuo, Ling-Ming Tseng, Dar-Ren Chen, Shou-Jen Kuo, Hung-Wen Lai1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer arising within a fibroadenoma (BcaFad) is rare; the rate varies from 0.002% to 0.125% in fibroadenoma specimens. Owing to its rarity, the clinicopathologic feature and treatment principle of BcaFad is still not clear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform a collective analysis of case reports in the literature to identify the characteristics and optimal treatment for BcaFad.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25382741 PMCID: PMC4289362 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-12-335
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Figure 1Flowchart of the search strategy. We initially identified 861 articles in the databases searched according to the keywords used. We excluded 801 articles after title screening because they did not mention fibroadenoma-related carcinoma, leaving 60 articles retrieved that described a significant relationship between fibroadenoma and carcinoma. We excluded 22 articles for lack of case details, even in the abstracts; 5 articles for no case data in the main text; 3 articles for focusing on other rare cancers linked to fibroadenoma; and 9 articles because they were case analyses or reviews. Thus, 24 cases from 21 studies were included, together with our 6 cases, which gave us a total of 30 cases for the final analysis.
Demographic data from identified studies in the literature and our cases
| Patient | Study | Age (yr) | Tumor size (cm) | Noted tumor duration (months) | Histology | TNM stage | Surgery | LN dissection | LN metastasis | Receptor status | C/T | H/T | R/T | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kurosumi | 42 | 2 × 3 | 21 | IDC | Ex | A | |||||||
| 2 | Sarela | 56 | 2 × 3 | 2 | LCIS + IDC | MT | A | P | ||||||
| 3 | Shah | 45 | 2.5 × 2 | 3 | LCIS | TisN0M0 | Ex | N | ||||||
| 4 | Yano | 54 | 2 | ILC | TisN0M0 | Ex | A | N | ||||||
| 5 | Kuijper | 46 | Multiple | DCIS + LCIS | TisN0M0 | MT | ||||||||
| 6 | Abe | 42 | 5.1 × 4.4 | 60 | IDC | MT | A | P | ER-PR+ | Yes | Yes | No | ||
| 7 | Stafyla | 27 | 3.4 | LCIS | TisN0M0 | Ex | N | |||||||
| 8 | Shin | 51 | 1.5 × 1 | 12 | IDC | MT | S | N | ER+PR+ | |||||
| 9 | Yuen | 39 | 1.1 | ILC | BCS | |||||||||
| 10 | Yuen | 45 | 0.8 | ILC | BCS | |||||||||
| 11 | Borecky and Rickard, 2008
[ | 64 | 1.2 | IDC | T1bN0M0 | BCS | S | N | ER+PR+ | |||||
| 12 | Borecky and Rickard, 2008
[ | 80 | 4.5 | 600 | IDC | BCS | S | N | ||||||
| 13 | Borecky and Rickard, 2008
[ | 53 | 1.7 | 12 | DCIS | TisN0M0 | Ex | S | N | |||||
| 14 | Gashi-Luci | 39 | 2.6 × 1.6 | IDC | MT | A | N | ER-PR- | R | |||||
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 15 | Khandelwal | 35 | 2 × 3 | 2 | IDC | BCS | A | P | ER+PR+ | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 16 | Iyengar | 43 | 1.8 | 24 | IDC | MT | ER-PR- | |||||||
| HER2+ | ||||||||||||||
| 17 | Rao | 30 | 4 × 2 | 1 | IDC | MT | A | P | ER-PR- | Yes | No | Yes | ||
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 18 | Petersson | 49 | 3 | 48 | IDC | Ex | S | N | ER+PR+ | |||||
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 19 | Kato | 42 | 1.5 | DCIS | TisN0M0 | BCS | S | N | ||||||
| 20 | Ooe | 46 | 2.4 × 1.7 | 60 | DCIS | TisN0M0 | BCS | S | N | ER+PR+ | No | Yes | Yes | |
| 21 | Tajima | 60 | 1.9 × 1.6 | 3 | ILC | BCS | ER+PR+ | |||||||
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 22 | Abu-Rahmeh | 69 | 5 | 180 | IDC | Lung metastasisb | ||||||||
| 23 | Jahan | 55 | 5 × 4 × 3 | 240 | IDC | MT | ||||||||
| 24 | Butler | 46 | 0.8 × 0.8 | ILC | T1bN0M0 | Ex | ||||||||
| 25 | Present study | 39 | 2.7 × 2.7 | 24 | IDC | T1aN0M0 | BCS | S | N | ER+PR+ | No | Nr | Nr | |
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 26 | Present study | 31 | 3.5 × 3.4 | 84 | IDC | T1aN1M0 | MT | A | P | ER+PR+ | Yes | Yes | No | |
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 27 | Present study | 30 | 1.5 × 1.4 | DCIS | TisN0M0 | BCS | ER+PR+ | No | Yes | No | ||||
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 28 | Present study | 63 | 1.2 | 0.5 | DCIS | TisN0M0 | BCS | S | N | ER+PR+ | No | Yes | Yes | |
| HER2- | ||||||||||||||
| 29 | Present study | 48 | 0.9 | 3 | DCIS | TisN0M0 | Ex | S | N | No | No | No | ||
| 30 | Present study | 40 | 0.6 | 0 | IDC | T1bN0M0 | MT | S | N | ER +PR- | No | Yes | No |
aA, Axillary lymph node dissection level I/II/III; B, Benign; C/T, Chemotherapy; ER, Estrogen receptor; Ex, Excision; HER2, Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ; H/T, Hormone therapy; LN, Lymph node; M, Malignancy; MT, Mastectomy; N, Negative; Nr, Patient refuse; P, Positive; PR, Progesterone receptor; R, Recurrence; R/T, Radiotherapy; S, Sentinel lymph node dissection; TNM, Tumor, node, metastasis. bLung metastasis at diagnosis.
Figure 2Postoperative photograph of patient 26. This patient had centrally located breast cancer arising from a fibroadenoma diagnosed before surgery. She was treated with endoscopically assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy combined with immediate breast reconstruction with a gel implant. Photograph was taken 3 months after surgery.
Demographic and clinical features
| Characteristics (
| Data |
|---|---|
| Mean age (range), yr | 46.9 (27 to 80) |
| Mean tumor size (range), cm | 2.46 (0.8 to 5.1) |
| Female gender, | 30 (100%) |
| Mean tumor follow-up duration (range) months | 61.2 (0.5 to 600) |
| Histologyb ( | |
| DCIS | 7 (23.3%) |
| LCIS | 5 (16.7%) |
| IDC | 16 (53.3%) |
| ILC | 4 (13.3%) |
| TNM stage ( | |
| TisN0M0 | 10 (33.3%) |
| T1aN0M0 | 1 (3.3%) |
| T1bN0M0 | 3 (10.0%) |
| T1aN1M0 | 1 (3.3%) |
| Unclear | 15 (30%) |
| Operation method ( | |
| BCS | 20 (66.7%) |
| Mastectomy | 9 (30.0%) |
| No data | 1 (3.3%) |
| Lymph node dissection ( | |
| Axillary clearance | 8 (26.7%) |
| Sentinel lymph node dissection | 11 (36.7%) |
| Not done | 1 (3.3%) |
| No data | 10 (33.3%) |
| Lymph node ( | |
| Metastasis | 5 (16.7%) |
| Negative | 16 (53.3%) |
| No data | 9 (30.0%) |
| Receptor status | |
| ER + ( | 11 (68.8%) |
| PR + ( | 10 (62.5%) |
| HER2+ ( | 1 (10.0%) |
| Further management | |
| Chemotherapy ( | 4 (40.0%) |
| Hormone therapy ( | 6 (60.0%) |
| Radiation therapy ( | 5 (45.5%) |
| Outcome | |
| Average follow-up (range), months | 21.9 (5 to 59) |
| Recurrence ( | 1 (6.3%) |
| Distant metastasisc ( | 1 (6.3%) |
aBCS, Breast-conserving surgery; DCIS, Ductal carcinoma in situ; ER, Estrogen receptor; HER2, Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; IDC, Invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, Invasive lobular carcinoma; LCIS, Lobular carcinoma in situ; PR, Progesterone receptor; TNM, Tumor, node, metastasis. bOne patient had both LCIS and IDC, and another had both DCIS and LCIS. cDistant metastasis was noted at cancer diagnosis.