Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Aug 5;14(1):207.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-0960-z.

Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast had poor clinical characteristics but showed no difference in prognosis compared with invasive ductal carcinoma

Guanqiao Li  1   2 , Shiping Yang  3 , Jia Yao  2 , Zhenping Wang  4 , Guangyu Yao  1 , Mingfeng Liu  1 , Changsheng Ye  5
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast had poor clinical characteristics but showed no difference in prognosis compared with invasive ductal carcinoma

Guanqiao Li et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: It is controversial for prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. To better understand the difference between IMPC and IDC prognoses, we conducted this retrospective study.

Methods: Data from 33 patients with IMPC were retrospectively reviewed, and the clinicopathologic characteristics and survival status were compared with those of 347 patients with IDC who were treated during the same period.

Results: The IMPC cases were of larger tumor size, greater proportion of nodal involvement, and an increased incidence of lymphovascular invasion compared with IDC cases. The overall survival (OS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were not significantly different between IMPC and IDC. The 3-year OS rate was 97 vs 94.2 % for the IMPC and IDC patients, respectively. The 3-year FFS rate was 87.9 vs 86.2 % for the IMPC and IDC patients, respectively. For IMPC patients, the 3-year LRFS rate was 93.9 % and in IDC patients was 89.0 %. The 3-year DMFS rates of IMPC patients was 90.9 % and IDC patients was 89 %.

Conclusions: IMPC had poor clinical characteristics, but it showed no difference in OS, FFS, LRFS, and DMFS compare with IDC.

Keywords: Breast; Clinical characteristics; Invasive ductal carcinoma; Invasive micropapillary carcinoma; Retrospective study; Survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for 33 patients with IMPC and 347 patients with IDC. Overall survival (a), failure-free survival (b), local relapse-free survival (c), and distant metastasis-free survival (d). P values were calculated with the unadjusted log-rank test. IMPC invasive micropapillary carcinoma, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Benson JR, Jatoi I. The global breast cancer burden. Future Oncol. 2012;8(6):697–702. doi: 10.2217/fon.12.61. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siriaunkgul S, Tavassoli FA. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Mod Pathol. 1993;6:660e2. - PubMed
    1. Luna-More S, delosSantos F, Breton JJ, Candas MA. Estrogen and progesterone receptors, c-erbB-2, p53, and Bcl-2 in thirty-three invasive micropapillary breast carcinomas. Pathol ResPract. 1996;192:27–32. - PubMed
    1. Chen L, Fan Y, Lang RG, Guo XJ, Sun YL, Cui LF, Liu FF, Wei J, Zhang XM, Fu L. Breast carcinoma with micropapillary features: clinicopathologic study and long-term follow-up of 100 cases. Int J Surg Pathol. 2008;16:155–163. doi: 10.1177/1066896907307047. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De la Cruz C1, Moriya T, Endoh M, Watanabe M, Takeyama J, Yang M, Oguma M, Sakamoto K, Suzuki T, Hirakawa H, Orita Y, Ohuchi N, Sasano H. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study. Pathol Int. 2004;54(2):90–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1827.2004.01590.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms