Tracy-Ann Moo1, Hanan Alabdulkareem2, Andrew Tam3, Constance Fontanet3, Yao Lu4, Alyssa Landers2,5, Timothy D'Alfonso6, Rache Simmons2. 1. Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Breast Center, New York, USA. trm9012@med.cornell.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Breast Center, New York, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Cornell University Joan and Sanford I Weill Medical College, New York, USA. 4. Department of Statistics, Cornell University Joan and Sanford I Weill Medical College, New York, USA. 5. Department of Breast Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast lesions not sampled prior to surgery or initially diagnosed as fibroepithelial lesions on core biopsy may have a diagnosis of phyllodes tumor (PT) on excision. Historically, re-excision for close or positive margins has been the standard of care. We examined the rate of re-excision for close or positive margins in patients with benign phyllodes and compared recurrence rates among those undergoing re-excision versus observation. METHODS: We identified all patients with phyllodes tumor diagnosed between 2003 and 2013. Operative and surgical pathology reports were reviewed for clinical, pathologic, and follow-up data. RESULTS: Among 246 cases, 216 (88%) were benign PT and 30 (12%) borderline/malignant tumors. In the group of benign PT (n = 216), margins were negative in 64 patients (29.6%), 50 (23%) were close, and 102 (47%) were positive. Of those with close margins, 22 (44%) underwent reexcision and residual benign PT was found in 2 (9%). In patients with positive margins, 45 (44%) had re-excision and residual benign PT was detected in 4 (8.8%). After a median follow-up of 35.5 months, there were 4 (1.9%) recurrences among patients with benign PT. There was no difference in recurrence among patients who had re-excision for positive or close margins versus observation (p = 0.7 and 0.21, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with close or positive margins, there was no significant difference in disease recurrence between patients who underwent reexcision and those who were observed. Based on these results, it may be reasonable to manage these patients conservatively with close follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Breast lesions not sampled prior to surgery or initially diagnosed as fibroepithelial lesions on core biopsy may have a diagnosis of phyllodestumor (PT) on excision. Historically, re-excision for close or positive margins has been the standard of care. We examined the rate of re-excision for close or positive margins in patients with benign phyllodes and compared recurrence rates among those undergoing re-excision versus observation. METHODS: We identified all patients with phyllodestumor diagnosed between 2003 and 2013. Operative and surgical pathology reports were reviewed for clinical, pathologic, and follow-up data. RESULTS: Among 246 cases, 216 (88%) were benign PT and 30 (12%) borderline/malignant tumors. In the group of benign PT (n = 216), margins were negative in 64 patients (29.6%), 50 (23%) were close, and 102 (47%) were positive. Of those with close margins, 22 (44%) underwent reexcision and residual benign PT was found in 2 (9%). In patients with positive margins, 45 (44%) had re-excision and residual benign PT was detected in 4 (8.8%). After a median follow-up of 35.5 months, there were 4 (1.9%) recurrences among patients with benign PT. There was no difference in recurrence among patients who had re-excision for positive or close margins versus observation (p = 0.7 and 0.21, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with close or positive margins, there was no significant difference in disease recurrence between patients who underwent reexcision and those who were observed. Based on these results, it may be reasonable to manage these patients conservatively with close follow-up.
Authors: Philip M Spanheimer; Melissa P Murray; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee; Andrea V Barrio Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Laura H Rosenberger; Samantha M Thomas; Suniti N Nimbkar; Tina J Hieken; Kandice K Ludwig; Lisa K Jacobs; Megan E Miller; Kristalyn K Gallagher; Jasmine Wong; Heather B Neuman; Jennifer Tseng; Taryn E Hassinger; Tari A King; James W Jakub Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julia Y S Tsang; Yau-Kam Hui; Michelle A Lee; Maribel Lacambra; Yun-Bi Ni; Sai-Yin Cheung; Cherry Wu; Ava Kwong; Gary M K Tse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.379