Search

Background: Phyllodes tumors are rare fibroepithelial neoplasms that are classified by tiered histopathologic features. While there are protocols for the reporting of cancer specimens, no standardized reporting protocol exists for phyllodes. Methods: We performed an 11-institution contemporary review of phyllodes tumors. Granular histopathologic details were recorded, including the features specifically considered for phyllodes grade classification. Results: Of 550 patients, median tumor size was 3.0 cm, 68.9% (n = 379) of tumors were benign, 19.6% (n = 108) were borderline, and 10.5% (n = 58) were malignant. All cases reported the final tumor size and grade classification. Complete pathologic reporting of all histopathologic features was present in 15.3% (n = 84) of cases, while an additional 35.6% (n = 196) were missing only one or two features in the report. Individual details regarding the degree of stromal cellularity was not reported in 53.5% (n = 294) of cases, degree of stromal atypia in 58.0% (n = 319) of cases, presence of stromal overgrowth in 56.2% (n = 309) of cases, stromal cell mitoses in 37.5% (n = 206) of cases, and tumor border in 54.2% (n = 298) of cases. The final margin status (negative vs. positive) was omitted in only 0.9% of cases, and the final negative margin width was specifically reported in 73.8% of cases. Reporting of details was similar across all sites. Conclusion: In this academic cohort of phyllodes tumors, one or more histopathologic features were frequently omitted from the pathology report. While all features were considered by the pathologist for grading, this limited reporting reflects a lack of reporting consensus. We recommend that standardized reporting in the form of a synoptic-style cancer protocol be implemented for phyllodes tumors, similar to other rare tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A paucity of data exists regarding inherited mutations associated with phyllodes tumors (PT); however, some are reported (TP53, BRCA1, and RB1). A PT diagnosis does not meet NCCN criteria for testing, including within Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (TP53). We sought to determine the prevalence of mutations associated with PT. Methods: We performed an 11-institution review of contemporary (2007–2017) PT practice. We recorded multigenerational family history and personal history of genetic testing. We identified patients meeting NCCN criteria for genetic evaluation. Logistic regression estimated the association of select covariates with likelihood of undergoing genetic testing. Results: Of 550 PT patients, 59.8% (n = 329) had a close family history of cancer, and 34.0% (n = 112) had ≥ 3 family members affected. Only 6.2% (n = 34) underwent genetic testing, 38.2% (n = 13) of whom had only BRCA1/BRCA2 tested. Of 34 patients tested, 8.8% had a deleterious mutation (1 BRCA1, 2 TP53), and 5.9% had a BRCA2 VUS. Of women who had TP53 testing (N = 21), 9.5% had a mutation. Selection for testing was not associated with age (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, p = 0.55) or PT size (p = 0.12) but was associated with grade (malignant vs. benign: OR 9.17, 95% CI 3.97–21.18) and meeting NCCN criteria (OR 3.43, 95% confidence interval 1.70–6.94). Notably, an additional 86 (15.6%) patients met NCCN criteria but had no genetic testing. Conclusions: Very few women with PT undergo germline testing; however, in those selected for testing, a deleterious mutation was identified in ~ 10%. Multigene testing of a PT cohort would present an opportunity to discover the true incidence of germline mutations in PT patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]