Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 178, Issue 1, pp 51–56 | Cite as

Accuracy and clinical implications of pre-operative breast core needle biopsy diagnoses of fibroepithelial neoplasms and sarcomatoid carcinomas

  • Alisha D. Ware
  • Pedram Argani
  • Ashley Cimino-MathewsEmail author
Preclinical study
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Accurate classification of breast phyllodes tumors (PTs) on core biopsy can be challenging. The differential diagnosis of benign PT (BP) is fibroadenoma (FA), whereas the differential diagnosis of malignant PT (MP) is sarcomatoid (metaplastic) carcinoma (SC).

Methods

Here, we compare the pre-excision core biopsy diagnosis and clinicopathologic features of histologically confirmed MP, borderline PT (BLP), BP, FA, and SC. Consecutive cases of 34 histologically confirmed PT (14 MP, 10 BLP, 10 BP), 13 SC, and 10 FA were identified.

Results

A core biopsy diagnosis of SC was made only in SC (77%, p = 0.003). The diagnosis “malignant neoplasm” or “atypical spindle cell neoplasm” was made in 100% MP and 23% SC, but no other tumor (p = 0.0001). The diagnosis “phyllodes tumor” was made only in PT (44% BLP, 11% BP, p = 0.06). The diagnosis “fibroepithelial lesion” was made in 44% BLP, 67% BP, and 29% FA. The diagnosis “FA” was made most commonly in FA (57%) (versus 22% BP and no other tumor; p = 0.002). Neoadjuvant therapy was given only in SC (23%, p = 0.03); adjuvant therapy was given in 46% SC and 13% MP (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

A pre-operative core biopsy diagnosis of “malignant spindle cell neoplasm” separates MP and SC from BLP, BP, and FA. However, MP and SC can have overlapping features on core biopsy. Thus, one must be careful not to overcall SC on core biopsy, as patients diagnosed with SC may receive neoadjuvant therapy. A core biopsy diagnosis of “phyllodes tumor” is specific for PT and can guide treatment planning of a wide local excision.

Keywords

Phyllodes tumor Malignant phyllodes tumor Sarcomatoid carcinoma Fibroepithelial lesion Core biopsy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Cimino-Mathews receives research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and the HeritX foundation, unrelated to the work presented in this current study. Drs. Ware and Argani declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The study is approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board to utilize de-identified, archival pathology specimens.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosen PP (2009) Fibroepithelial neoplasms. In: Rosen PP (ed) Rosen’s breast pathology, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, pp 187–229Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tan PH, Tse G, Lee A et al (2012) Fibroepithelial tumours. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ et al (eds) World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 142–147Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee AH, Hodi Z, Ellis IO, Elston CW (2007) Histological features useful in the distinction of phyllodes tumour and fibroadenoma on needle core biopsy of the breast. Histopathology 51(3):336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Komenaka IK, El-Tamer M, Pile-Spellman E, Hibshoosh H (2003) Core needle biopsy as a diagnostic tool to differentiate phyllodes tumor from fibroadenoma. Arch Surg 138(9):987–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobs TW, Chen YY, Guinee DG, Holden JA, Cha I, Bauermeister DE, Hashimoto B, Wolverton D, Hartzog G (2005) Fibroepithelial lesions with cellular stroma on breast core needle biopsy: are there predictors of outcome on surgical excision? Am J Clin Pathol 124(3):342–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dillon MF, Quinn CM, McDermott EW, O’Doherty A, O’Higgins N, Hill AD (2006) Needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of phyllodes neoplasm. Surgery 140(5):779–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giri D (2009) Recurrent challenges in the evaluation of fibroepithelial lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133(5):713–721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan BY, Acs G, Apple SK, Badve S, Bleiweiss IJ, Brogi E, Calvo JP, Dabbs DJ, Ellis IO, Eusebi V et al (2016) Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a consensus review. Histopathology 68(1):5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee AH (2008) Recent developments in the histological diagnosis of spindle cell carcinoma, fibromatosis and phyllodes tumour of the breast. Histopathology 52(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunne B, Lee AH, Pinder SE, Bell JA, Ellis IO (2003) An immunohistochemical study of metaplastic spindle cell carcinoma, phyllodes tumor and fibromatosis of the breast. Hum Pathol 34(10):1009–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karim RZ, Gerega SK, Yang YH, Spillane A, Carmalt H, Scolyer RA, Lee CS (2009) Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a clinicopathological analysis of 65 cases from a single institution. Breast 18(3):165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reis-Filho J, Lakhani S, Gobbi H et al (2012) Metaplastic carcinoma. In: Lakhani S, Ellis I, Schnitt S, Tan P, van de Vijver M (eds) World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. IARC Press, Lyon, France, pp 48–52Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cimino-Mathews A, Hicks JL, Sharma R, Vang R, Illei PB, De Marzo A, Emens LA, Argani P (2013) A subset of malignant phyllodes tumors harbors alterations in the Rb/p16 pathway. Hum Pathol 44(11):2494–2500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cimino-Mathews A, Subhawong AP, Elwood H, Warzecha HN, Sharma R, Park BH, Taube JM, Illei PB, Argani P (2013) Neural crest transcription factor Sox10 is preferentially expressed in triple-negative and metaplastic breast carcinomas. Hum Pathol 44(6):959–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cimino-Mathews A, Subhawong AP, Illei PB, Sharma R, Halushka MK, Vang R, Fetting JH, Park BH, Argani P (2013) GATA3 expression in breast carcinoma: utility in triple-negative, sarcomatoid, and metastatic carcinomas. Hum Pathol 44(7):1341–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cimino-Mathews A, Sharma R, Illei PB, Vang R, Argani P (2014) A subset of malignant phyllodes tumors express p63 and p40: a diagnostic pitfall in breast core needle biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 38(12):1689–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kleer CG, Giordano TJ, Braun T, Oberman HA (2001) Pathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features of benign and malignant phyllodes tumors of the breast. Mod Pathol 14(3):185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moffat CJ, Pinder SE, Dixon AR, Elston CW, Blamey RW, Ellis IO (1995) Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a clinicopathological review of thirty-two cases. Histopathology 27(3):205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esposito NN, Mohan D, Brufsky A, Lin Y, Kapali M, Dabbs DJ (2006) Phyllodes tumor: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 30 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130(10):1516–1521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Foxcroft LM, Evans EB, Porter AJ (2007) Difficulties in the pre-operative diagnosis of phyllodes tumours of the breast: a study of 84 cases. Breast 16(1):27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choi J, Koo JS (2012) Comparative study of histological features between core needle biopsy and surgical excision in phyllodes tumor. Pathol Int 62(2):120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wargotz ES, Norris HJ (1989) Metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. I. Matrix-producing carcinoma. Hum Pathol 20(7):628–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wargotz ES, Deos PH, Norris HJ (1989) Metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. II. Spindle cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol 20(8):732–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wargotz ES, Norris HJ (1989) Metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. III. Carcinosarcoma. Cancer 64(7):1490–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosen P (2009) Carcinomas with metaplasia. In: Rosen P (ed) Rosen’s breast pathology, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, pp 470–505Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Panko N, Jebran AA, Gomberawalla A, Connolly M (2017) Invasive ductal carcinoma within a benign phyllodes tumor. Am J Case Rep 18:813–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Avigdor BE, Beierl K, Gocke CD, Zabransky DJ, Cravero K, Kyker-Snowman K, Button B, Chu D, Croessmann S, Cochran RL et al (2017) Whole-exome sequencing of metaplastic breast carcinoma indicates monoclonality with associated ductal carcinoma component. Clin Cancer Res 23(16):4875–4884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nayak M, Patra S, Mishra P, Sahoo N, Sasmal PK, Mishra TS (2017) Malignant phyllodes tumor with heterologous differentiation: clinicopathological spectrum of nine cases in a tertiary care institute in Eastern India. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 60(3):371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Niezabitowski A, Lackowska B, Rys J, Kruczak A, Kowalska T, Mitus J, Reinfuss M, Markiewicz D (2001) Prognostic evaluation of proliferative activity and DNA content in the phyllodes tumor of the breast: immunohistochemical and flow cytometric study of 118 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 65(1):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yohe S, Yeh IT (2008) “Missed” diagnoses of phyllodes tumor on breast biopsy: pathologic clues to its recognition. Int J Surg Pathol 16(2):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shpitz B, Bomstein Y, Sternberg A, Klein E, Tiomkin V, Kaufman A, Groisman G, Bernheim J (2002) Immunoreactivity of p53, Ki-67, and c-erbB-2 in phyllodes tumors of the breast in correlation with clinical and morphologic features. J Surg Oncol 79(2):86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Subhawong AP, Subhawong T, Nassar H, Kouprina N, Begum S, Vang R, Westra WH, Argani P (2009) Most basal-like breast carcinomas demonstrate the same Rb-/p16+ immunophenotype as the HPV-related poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinomas which they resemble morphologically. Am J Surg Pathol 33(2):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Laé M, Vincent-Salomon A, Savignoni A, Huon I, Fréneaux P, Sigal-Zafrani B, Aurias A, Sastre-Garau X, Couturier J (2007) Phyllodes tumors of the breast segregate in two groups according to genetic criteria. Mod Pathol 20(4):435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sawyer EJ, Hanby AM, Ellis P, Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Boyle S, Tomlinson IP (2000) Molecular analysis of phyllodes tumors reveals distinct changes in the epithelial and stromal components. Am J Pathol 156(3):1093–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pareja F, Geyer FC, Kumar R, Selenica P, Piscuoglio S, Ng CKY, Burke KA, Edelweiss M, Murray MP, Brogi E et al (2017) Phyllodes tumors with and without fibroadenoma-like areas display distinct genomic features and may evolve through distinct pathways. NPJ Breast Cancer 3:40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Piscuoglio S, Geyer FC, Burke KA, Murray MP, Ng CK, Mota A, Marchio C, Berman SH, Norton L, Brogi E et al (2016) Massively parallel sequencing analysis of synchronous fibroepithelial lesions supports the concept of progression from fibroadenoma to phyllodes tumor. NPJ Breast Cancer 2:16035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ben Hassouna J, Damak T, Gamoudi A, Chargui R, Khomsi F, Mahjoub S, Slimene M, Ben Dhiab T, Hechiche M, Boussen H et al (2006) Phyllodes tumors of the breast: a case series of 106 patients. Am J Surg 192(2):141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cowan ML, Argani P, Cimino-Mathews A (2016) Benign and low-grade fibroepithelial neoplasms of the breast have low recurrence rate after positive surgical margins. Mod Pathol 29(3):259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moo TA, Alabdulkareem H, Tam A, Fontanet C, Lu Y, Landers A, D’Alfonso T, Simmons R (2017) Association between recurrence and re-excision for close and positive margins versus observation in patients with benign phyllodes tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 24(10):3088–3092CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of PathologyThe Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.The Departments of Pathology and OncologyThe Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations