4.4 Article

Predicting clinical behaviour of breast phyllodes tumours: a nomogram based on histological criteria and surgical margins

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 69-76

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200368

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To define a predictive model for clinical behaviour of breast phyllodes tumours (PT) using histological parameters and surgical margin status. Methods Cases of breast PT diagnosed in the Department of Pathology Singapore General Hospital between January 1992 and December 2010 were stratified into benign, borderline and malignant grades based on a combination of histological parameters (stromal atypia, hypercellularity, mitoses, overgrowth and nature of tumour borders). Surgical margin status was assessed. Clinical follow-up and biostatistical modelling were accomplished. Results Of 605 PT, 440 (72.7%) were benign, 111 (18.4%) borderline and 54 (8.9%) malignant. Recurrences, which were predominantly local, were documented in 80 (13.2%) women. Deaths from PT occurred in 12 (2%) women. Multivariate analysis revealed stromal atypia, overgrowth and surgical margins to be independently predictive of clinical behaviour, with mitoses achieving near significance. Stromal hypercellularity and tumour borders were not independently useful. A nomogram developed based on atypia, mitoses, overgrowth and surgical margins (AMOS criteria) could predict recurrence-free survival at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years. This nomogram was superior to a total histological score derived from adding values assigned to each of five histological parameters. Conclusion A predictive nomogram based on three histological criteria and surgical margin status can be used to calculate recurrence-free survival of an individual woman diagnosed with PT. This can be applied for patient counselling and clinical management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available