| Literature DB >> 25880163 |
Yanling Zhang1, Yurong Ou2, Donghong Yu3, Xiang Yong4, Xiaoli Wang5, Bo Zhu6, Qiong Zhang7, Lei Zhou8, Zhaogen Cai9, Zenong Cheng10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Centrally necrotizing carcinoma of the breast (CNC) represents a newly-identified subset of breast cancer. The clinical and pathological characteristics of this breast cancer subtype are not yet completely understood.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25880163 PMCID: PMC4403997 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1305-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinicopathological features in CNC and control patients
| Experimental group | Control group | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (CNC) | (IDC with localized necrosis) | ||
| Mean tumor size (cm) | 2.49 | 2.34 | >0.05 |
| Negative lymph nodes | 40/62 | 19/30 | 0.988 |
| IDC grade 3 | 67/73 | 27/30 | 0.771 |
IDC, infiltrating ductal carcinoma.
Figure 1The imaging features of CNC. (a): Ultrasonography indicated a well-defined, heterogeneous, hypoechoic lesion. (b): The tumor was manifested as a irregular nodule with a heterogeneous, higher-density shadow, associated with tortuous vasculature around the tumor.
Figure 2The tumors showed unicentric nodules. The cut surface had a white to tan appearance, accompanied by necrosis in the central region.
Figure 3Microscopical findings of CNC. (a): The tumor presented with an extensive central necrotic or acellular zone surrounded by ring-like or ribbon-like residual tumor tissue. The transition between the central necrotic or acellular zone and the viable tumor tissue was abrupt (×4). (b): The central zone of the tumor showed coagulative necrosis with pink, fine granules combined with fibrotic or hyaline material and a tumorous stroma around the central necrotic zone, accompanied by myxoid matrix formation (×10). (c): The tumor cells were arranged in cord-like or nest-like patterns. Most of the tumor cells showed evident atypia, prominent nucleoli, and frequent mitotic figures (×40). (d): Focal cartilaginous metaplasia was present in this case (→)(×10). (e): The periphery of the tumors demonstrating the granulomatous reaction(→) (×40).
Relationship between clinicopathological features and extent of necrosis in 73 patients with CNC
| Clinicopathological feature | Case | ≥30% but <50% necrosis | ≥50% but <70% necrosis | ≥70% necrosis | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (7, 9.6%) | (25, 34.3%) | (41, 56.2%) | ||||
| IDC | Grade 3 | 67 | 7 (100.0%) | 23 (92.0%) | 37 (82.2%) | 0.685 |
| Grade 2 | 6 | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (8.0%) | 4 (9.8%) | 0.685 | |
| Grade 1 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | — | |
| Ductal carcinoma in situ | 36 | 4 (57.1%) | 13 (52.0%) | 19 (46.3%) | 0.823 | |
| Mucinous carcinoma | 5 | 1 (14.3%) | 3 (12.0%) | 1 (2.4%) | 0.235 | |
| Intraductal papillary carcinoma | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (2.4%) | 0.673 | |
| Invasive micropapillary carcinoma | 2 | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (2.4%) | 0.835 | |
| Metaplasia | 6 | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (16.0%) | 2 (4.9%) | 0.198 | |
| Myxoid stroma | 28 | 1 (14.3%) | 11 (44.0%) | 16 (39.0%) | 0.357 | |
| Lymphocytic infiltration | 53 | 5 (71.4%) | 17 (68.0%) | 31 (75.6%) | 0.796 | |
| Granulation tissue proliferation | 49 | 3 (42.9%) | 19 (76.0%) | 27 (65.9) | 0.248 | |
| Vascular invasion | 10 | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (16.0%) | 6 (14.6%) | 0.534 | |
| Perineuronal invasion | 5 | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (4.0%) | 3 (7.3%) | 0.625 | |
| Expression of myoepithelial markers | 43 | 4 (57.1%) | 19 (76.0%) | 20 (48.8%) | 0.092 | |
| Expression of basal-like markers | 52 | 5 (71.4%) | 22 (88.0%) | 25 (61.0%) | 0.063 | |
| Molecular classification | Basal-like subtype | 37 | 3 (42.9%) | 9 (36.0%) | 25 (61.0%) | 0.132 |
| Luminal A | 20 | 3 (42.9%) | 9 (36.0%) | 8 (19.5%) | 0.217 | |
| Luminal B | 7 | 1 (14.3%) | 5 (20.0%) | 1 (2.4%) | 0.057 | |
| HER2-overexpressing | 6 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (14.6%) | 0.078 | |
| Null subtype | 3 | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | 2 (4.9%) | 0.834 | |
| Disease progression | 11 | 1 (14.3%) | 2 (8.0%) | 8 (19.5%) | 0.796 | |
Figure 4Immunohistochemical findings of CNC. (a): The tumor cells were diffusely, strongly-positive for CK5/6 (×10). (b): The tumor cells were diffusely, strongly-positive for EGFR (×10). (c): The tumor cells were positive for CD10 (×10).