An analysis of 78 breast sarcoma patients without distant metastases at presentation

Primary breast sarcoma: clinicopathologic series from the Mayo Clinic and review of the literature

“…Reported series in the English literature had included all three entities as breast sarcomas, and include in their reports angiosarcomas, desmoid tumours, and lymphosarcomas (Botham et al, 1958;Berg et al, 1962;Oberman, 1965;Donegan, 1967;Fawcett, 1967;Kennedy and Biggart, 1967;Norris and Taylor, 1968;Rissanen and Holsti, 1968;Gogas et al, 1976;Barnes and Pietruszka, 1977;Ludgate et al, 1977;Khanna et al, 1981;Callery et al, 1985;Christensen et al, 1988;Stanley et al, 1988;Terrier et al, 1989;Pollard et al, 1990;Pitts et al, 1991;Ciatto et al, 1992;Luna Vega et al, 1992;Johnstone et al, 1993;Smola et al, 1993;Gutman et al, 1994;McGregor et al, 1994;Moore and Kinne, 1996;North et al, 1998;Barrow et al, 1999;McGowan et al, 2000). Therefore, reliable assessments of prognostic factors are difficult to make based on the published literature.…”

“…Some authors found age to be of prognostic importance (Ludgate et al, 1977). Margins status is a major risk factor for recurrence as it occurs in any neoplastic entity, and some authors advised adjuvant radiotherapy for cases with positive margins (Callery et al, 1985;Smola et al, 1993), or less than 2 cm of clear margins (McGowan et al, 2000). Treatment is generally based on a wide local excision, without axillary dissection (Barrow et al, 1999).…”

“…Berg et al defined stromal sarcomas of the breast in 1962 as a group of mesenchymal malignant tumours with fibrous, myxoid and adipose components, excluding malignant cystosarcoma phyllodes, lymphomas and angiosarcomas (Berg et al, 1962). However, series in the literature have included many different entities under the rubric of sarcomas such as cystosarcoma phyllodes, lymphosarcoma and carcinosarcoma (Botham et al, 1958;Donegan, 1967;Fawcett, 1967;Kennedy and Biggart, 1967;Rissanen and Holsti, 1968;Gogas et al, 1976;Ludgate et al, 1977;Khanna et al, 1981;Christensen et al, 1988;Terrier et al, 1989;Pitts et al, 1991;Ciatto et al, 1992;Luna Vega et al, 1992;McGregor et al, 1994;Moore and Kinne, 1996;McGowan et al, 2000). For this review, we choose to categorise primary breast sarcomas in histogenic terms, similar to other soft-tissue sarcomas, thus including angiosarcomas, and excluding malignant cystosarcomas phyllodes, as reported by others (see Table 1) (Berg et al, 1962;Oberman, 1965;Norris and Taylor, 1968;Barnes and Pietruszka, 1977;Callery et al, 1985;Stanley et al, 1988;Pollard et al, 1990;Johnstone et al, 1993;Smola et al, 1993;Gutman et al, 1994;North et al, 1998;Barrow et al, 1999).…”

A Systematic Overview of Radiation Therapy Effects in Soft Tissue Sarcomas

“…The doses prescribed for adjuvant radiotherapy are based upon local failure analyses. However, there is a paucity of dose-response data (3,9,11,28). In general, the preoperative EBRT dose used in most centres is 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions (2,6,38).…”

Phyllodes tumor of the breast: Wolf inside the sheep’s skin!

“…Seventeen of the eighteen local failures were diagnosed within 4 years of initial presentation. [52] Due to small numbers, the subgroup analysis testing benefit of radiation in lumpectomy and mastectomy group did not result in any statistically significant difference in clinical outcome. Nonetheless, analyzing the outcome as per radiation dose (≤48 Gray (Gy), >48 Gy, or none) resulted in better 5-year causespecific survival in the higher radiation group (91 vs. 50%).…”