Tubular Carcinoma of the Breast: a Retrospective Analysis and Review of the Literature

Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (Impact Factor: 3.94). 11/2005; 93(3):199-205. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-005-5089-7
Source: PubMed


The favorable prognosis associated with tubular carcinoma of the breast has led some studies to propose less aggressive treatments for patients with this disease. This study aims to address the extent of therapy needed for tubular patients.
A retrospective review identified 73 cases of tubular carcinoma treated at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 1980 and 2002. Primary treatment was conservative surgery (CS) plus radiation therapy (RT) in 67%, CS without RT in 18%, and mastectomy in 15%. Median follow-up time was 90.5 months. The published literature of 529 conservatively treated tubular carcinomas was reviewed along with the 62 conservative cases from this series. : No patients developed distant metastasis or died from this disease. Local failure occurred in three (4%) of the cases, after 13, 84 and 121 months. All three had initially been treated with CS + RT. Five cases were node-positive, three of which were associated with a primary tumor smaller than 1 cm. Thirteen women, with a median age of 74, were treated by CS without RT and none recurred. A literature review showed that adjuvant RT reduces local failure following CS for tubular carcinoma.
Tubular carcinoma is associated with an excellent prognosis, but long-term follow-up is essential for detecting local failures and a small primary tumor size does not preclude nodal involvement. Adjuvant RT reduces the incidence of local failure following CS for tubular carcinoma, however, elderly women treated by CS may have a very low risk of local recurrence without adjuvant RT.

1 Follower
14 Reads
  • Source
    • "Tubular carcinoma (TC) of the breast is an uncommon histological subtype of invasive breast cancer that accounts for approximately 1% to 5% of invasive breast carcinomas [1-3]. TC is defined as a well-differentiated invasive carcinoma with regular cells arranged in well-defined tubules (typically one layer thick) surrounded by an abundant fibrohyaline stroma, classified as pure TC or mixed TC [1-3]. The term pure TC is assigned to tumors with a tubular composition of ≥90%, a low nuclear grade, and no mitoses [4], whereas mixed TC has a tubular composition of ≥75% [5,6]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tubular carcinoma (TC) of the breast is an uncommon histological subtype of invasive breast cancer with an excellent prognosis compared with standard invasive ductal carcinoma. Recent studies suggested a possible precursor role for low grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the development of TC. The goal of this analysis was to understand the clinicopathologic features and outcomes of TC by comparing TC with DCIS. A retrospective review identified 70 patients with TC and 1,106 patients with DCIS between 1995 and 2011. Student t-test and Fisher exact test were used to compare the clinicopathologic characteristics of TC patients with those of DCIS patients. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to determine disease-free survival (DFS) rates. Compared to DCIS, TC exhibited favorable clinicopathologic characteristics such as a lower nuclear grade (92.3%), higher expression of hormonal receptors (estrogen receptor-positive, 92.9%; progesterone receptor-positive, 87.0%), and less frequent overexpression of human epidermal growth receptor 2 (12.9%). DFS did not differ significantly between the TC and DCIS groups (5-year DFS, 100% vs. 96.7%; 10-year DFS, 92.3% vs. 93.3%; p=0.324), and cancer-specific deaths were not noted in either group. However, axillary lymph node involvement was observed in six (8.6%) of the 70 patients with TC. Three of these patients had small tumors (≤1 cm). In our study cohort, TC was associated with an excellent prognosis and a low rate of lymph node metastasis. However, lymph nodes metastases were found even in patients with small tumors (≤1 cm). Axillary staging must be considered for all patients with TC of the breast.
    Journal of Breast Cancer 12/2013; 16(4):404-9. DOI:10.4048/jbc.2013.16.4.404 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among American women. Due to increased screening, the majority of patients present with early-stage breast cancer. The Oxford Overview Analysis demonstrates that adjuvant hormonal therapy and polychemotherapy reduce the risk of recurrence and death from breast cancer. Adjuvant systemic therapy, however, has associated risks and it would be useful to be able to optimally select patients most likely to benefit. The purpose of adjuvant systemic therapy is to eradicate distant micrometastatic deposits. It is essential therefore to be able to estimate an individual patient's risk of harboring clinically silent micrometastatic disease using established prognostic factors. It is also beneficial to be able to select the optimal adjuvant therapy for an individual patient based on established predictive factors. It is standard practice to administer systemic therapy to all patients with lymph node-positive disease. However, there are clearly differences among node-positive women that may warrant a more aggressive therapeutic approach. Furthermore, there are many node-negative women who would also benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. Prognostic factors therefore must be differentiated from predictive factors. A prognostic factor is any measurement available at the time of surgery that correlates with disease-free or overall survival in the absence of systemic adjuvant therapy and, as a result, is able to correlate with the natural history of the disease. In contrast, a predictive factor is any measurement associated with response to a given therapy. Some factors, such as hormone receptors and HER2/neu overexpression, are both prognostic and predictive.
    The Oncologist 02/2004; 9(6):606-16. DOI:10.1634/theoncologist.9-6-606 · 4.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Radiology Case Reports 05/2006; 1(2). DOI:10.2484/rcr.v1i2.17
Show more