4.5 Article

Solid Papillary Breast Carcinomas Resembling the Tall Cell Variant of Papillary Thyroid Neoplasms: A Unique Invasive Tumor With Indolent Behavior

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 41, 期 7, 页码 887-895

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000853

关键词

breast; thyroid-like carcinoma; papillary carcinoma

资金

  1. University of Bologna
  2. ASAN Onlus, Bologna
  3. National Research, Development and Innovation Office [GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thirteen cases of invasive solid papillary breast carcinomas resembling the tall cell variant of papillary thyroid neoplasms (BPTC) are reported here. Some cases had long-term follow-up. BPTC is a special type of primary breast neoplasm showing a triple-negative profile but low aggressive potential. Knowledge on BPTC is still scanty; therefore, the aim of the present paper was to report on the features of an additional 13 cases. All the patients were female individuals, and the mean age at presentation was 62.6 years; nodule sizes ranged from 0.6 to 2.5 cm (average, 1.6 cm). All the cases were characterized on histology by papillary, follicular as well as solid structures. The cells were columnar, eosinophilic mostly with granular cytoplasms, rich in mitochondria, with the features of oncocytes in no fewer than 7 cases. Estrogen and progesterone receptors as well as HER2 were consistently negative. The Ki67 proliferative index was low. Markers consistent with thyroid origin, such as TTF1 and thyroglobulin, were negative. Five cases stained for mammoglobin and GATA 3 were positive. All cases proved to be invasive and 2 cases each experienced metastases to 1 lymph node (axillary and intramammary). One case of the latter had a local recurrence. Nevertheless, all the patients are alive, free of disease 24 to 132 months after surgery, of which 8 are without further treatment The present series confirms that BPTC is a primary breast tumor of low malignant potential.

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