Jiyoung Kim1, Jee Ye Kim2, Han-Byoel Lee3, Young Joo Lee4, Min-Ki Seong5, Namsun Paik6, Woo-Chan Park7, Sungmin Park8, Seung Pil Jung9, Soo Youn Bae10. 1. Department of Surgery, Daerim St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, South Korea. 6. Ewha Womans University Cancer Center Hospital for Women, Seoul, South Korea. 7. Department of Surgery, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 8. Department of Breast Surgery, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea. 9. Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73 Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, 02841, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 10. Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73 Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, 02841, Seoul, Republic of Korea. baessu@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with various histopathologic subtypes. Except for invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST), other subtypes are rare with limited data. The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics and prognosis of special histopathologic subtypes of breast cancer compared to NST. METHODS: A total of 136,140 patients were analyzed using the Korean Breast Cancer Society Registry database between January 1996 and March 2019. The clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes of special type breast carcinoma were compared with those of NST. RESULTS: The prevalence of special subtypes other than NST was 13.7% (n = 18,633). Compared to NST, patients with lobular, medullary, metaplastic, and micropapillary carcinoma had larger tumors (p < 0.001). Patients with mucinous, tubular, medullary, metaplastic, and cribriform carcinoma presented with less node metastasis (p < 0.001), contrary to patients with micropapillary carcinoma. Patients with lobular, mucinous, tubular, papillary, and cribriform carcinoma presented as luminal A subtype much more often (p < 0.001). Micropapillary carcinoma included more luminal B subtype (p < 0.001). Typically, medullary and metaplastic carcinoma included more triple-negative subtypes (p < 0.001). In survival analysis, only medullary (Hazard Ratio (HzR) 0.542, 95% CI 0.345 to 0.852, p = 0.008) and metaplastic carcinoma (HzR 1.655, 95% CI 1.317 to 2.080, p < 0.001) showed significantly different overall survival from NST by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer had distinct clinicopathologic features according to histopathologic subtype. However, special types of breast cancer had similar survival outcomes compared to NST when adjusting for other prognostic factors, except for metaplastic carcinoma and medullary carcinoma.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with various histopathologic subtypes. Except for invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST), other subtypes are rare with limited data. The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics and prognosis of special histopathologic subtypes of breast cancer compared to NST. METHODS: A total of 136,140 patients were analyzed using the Korean Breast Cancer Society Registry database between January 1996 and March 2019. The clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes of special type breast carcinoma were compared with those of NST. RESULTS: The prevalence of special subtypes other than NST was 13.7% (n = 18,633). Compared to NST, patients with lobular, medullary, metaplastic, and micropapillary carcinoma had larger tumors (p < 0.001). Patients with mucinous, tubular, medullary, metaplastic, and cribriform carcinoma presented with less node metastasis (p < 0.001), contrary to patients with micropapillary carcinoma. Patients with lobular, mucinous, tubular, papillary, and cribriform carcinoma presented as luminal A subtype much more often (p < 0.001). Micropapillary carcinoma included more luminal B subtype (p < 0.001). Typically, medullary and metaplastic carcinoma included more triple-negative subtypes (p < 0.001). In survival analysis, only medullary (Hazard Ratio (HzR) 0.542, 95% CI 0.345 to 0.852, p = 0.008) and metaplastic carcinoma (HzR 1.655, 95% CI 1.317 to 2.080, p < 0.001) showed significantly different overall survival from NST by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION:Breast cancer had distinct clinicopathologic features according to histopathologic subtype. However, special types of breast cancer had similar survival outcomes compared to NST when adjusting for other prognostic factors, except for metaplastic carcinoma and medullary carcinoma.
Authors: Georgios-Ioannis Verras; Levan Tchabashvili; Francesk Mulita; Ioanna Maria Grypari; Sofia Sourouni; Evangelia Panagodimou; Maria-Ioanna Argentou Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2022-03-12
Authors: M J M Uijen; Y H W Derks; W A M van Gemert; J Nagarajah; R I J Merkx; M G M Schilham; J Roosen; B M Privé; S A M van Lith; C M L van Herpen; M Gotthardt; S Heskamp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 9.236