4.5 Article

Lipid-rich carcinoma of the breast that is strongly positive for estrogen receptor: a case report and literature review

期刊

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 1641-1646

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S88726

关键词

breast cancer; estrogen receptor; endocrine therapy

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25461976] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lipid-rich carcinoma (LRC) of the breast is a rare breast cancer variant that accounts for <1% of all breast malignancies. It has been reported that LRCs are negative for estrogen receptor. Here, we report a case of LRC of the breast that was strongly positive for estrogen receptor and treated with endocrine adjuvant therapy. A 52-year-old postmenopausal female noticed a lump in her right breast by self-examination and presented to our hospital. Physical examination revealed an elastic 30 mm x 20 mm hard mass in the upper medial part of her right breast. The findings obtained using ultrasonography, mammography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging suggested breast cancer. Core needle biopsy resulted in the diagnosis of invasive carcinoma. The patient underwent mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Histopathologically, the tumor cells were abundant in foamy cytoplasm. Because the presence of marked cytoplasmic lipid droplets was confirmed by Sudan IV staining and electron microscopic examination of the tumor and the lipid droplets were negative for periodic acid-Schiff staining, the tumor was diagnosed as an LRC. Immunohistochemically, estrogen and progesterone receptors of the tumor were strongly positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 was negative, and the ratio of Ki-67-positive cells was similar to 30%. After surgery, the patient underwent combination chemotherapy with anthracycline, cyclophosphamide, and 5-fluorouracil, followed by docetaxel. Thereafter, the pateint was treated with letrozole and has remained well for 24 months with no signs of recurrence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据