Mustafa Gök1, Uğur Topal1,2, Bahadır Öz3, Hülya Akgün2, Alper Celal Akcan3, Erdoğan Mütevelli Sözüer1,2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey. 3. Department of Pathology, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are multiple subtypes of breast cancer with different biological and pathological features and accordingly exhibit different clinical behaviors. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment modalities, clinical features and prognostic characteristics of Mix Mucinous Carcinomas (MMBC) and other rare tumors of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A total of 2152 patients who were operated on for breast cancer in our clinic between 2010-2019, with pathological diagnoses of tubular, pure mucinous, mix mucinous or papillary carcinoma were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into two groups as mix mucinous patients (Group1) and other rare tumors (Group2). The demographic, clinical and prognostic characteristics and treatment approaches were compared between Groups, and additionally between the subtypes of Group 2. RESULTS: 42 patients participated in our study. Group 1 consisted of 7 patients, and Group2 consisted of 35 patients. The subtypes in Group2 were papillary (n=21), pure mucinous (n=10) and tubular (n=4). Progesterone Receptor Positivity was found to be significantly higher in Group 2 patients than in Group1 patients (p=0.005, p<0.05). Multicentricity rates in the tumors of the patients in Group1 were found to be statistically significantly higher than the patients in Group 2 (p=0.024, p<0.05). In subtype analysis in Group2, there were no statistically significant differences parameters in the subgroups (p>0.05). Mean survival was 19.5+5.6 (8.5-30.5) months in Group 1 and 46.3+5.2 (36.1-56.6) months, in Group2 when evaluated separately (p:0.002). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of pure mucinosis (PMBC) and other atypical cancers of the breast compared to the (MMBC) is quite good. Rare pathological types of breast cancer can have favorable outcomes when treated with necessary oncological principles.
OBJECTIVE: There are multiple subtypes of breast cancer with different biological and pathological features and accordingly exhibit different clinical behaviors. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment modalities, clinical features and prognostic characteristics of Mix Mucinous Carcinomas (MMBC) and other rare tumors of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A total of 2152 patients who were operated on for breast cancer in our clinic between 2010-2019, with pathological diagnoses of tubular, pure mucinous, mix mucinous or papillary carcinoma were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into two groups as mix mucinous patients (Group1) and other rare tumors (Group2). The demographic, clinical and prognostic characteristics and treatment approaches were compared between Groups, and additionally between the subtypes of Group 2. RESULTS: 42 patients participated in our study. Group 1 consisted of 7 patients, and Group2 consisted of 35 patients. The subtypes in Group2 were papillary (n=21), pure mucinous (n=10) and tubular (n=4). Progesterone Receptor Positivity was found to be significantly higher in Group 2 patients than in Group1 patients (p=0.005, p<0.05). Multicentricity rates in the tumors of the patients in Group1 were found to be statistically significantly higher than the patients in Group 2 (p=0.024, p<0.05). In subtype analysis in Group2, there were no statistically significant differences parameters in the subgroups (p>0.05). Mean survival was 19.5+5.6 (8.5-30.5) months in Group 1 and 46.3+5.2 (36.1-56.6) months, in Group2 when evaluated separately (p:0.002). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of pure mucinosis (PMBC) and other atypical cancers of the breast compared to the (MMBC) is quite good. Rare pathological types of breast cancer can have favorable outcomes when treated with necessary oncological principles.
Authors: K Anan; S Mitsuyama; K Tamae; K Nishihara; T Iwashita; Y Abe; T Ihara; S Nakahara; F Katsumoto; S Toyoshima Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Piotr Skotnicki; Beata Sas-Korczynska; Lukasz Strzepek; Jerzy Jakubowicz; Pawel Blecharz; Marian Reinfuss; Tomasz Walasek Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976