Impact of invasive lobular carcinoma on long-term outcomes in Mexican breast cancer patients
- 16 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare the difference in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in our Hispanic population with breast cancer (BC).
We retrospectively analyzed a database of 4533 non-metastatic BC patients treated for BC at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico (INCan) between 2006 and 2016. We compared clinical characteristics, treatment and survival between women with invasive ductal and invasive lobular BC. We evaluated differences between survival curves with the log-rank test and used Cox’s proportional hazards model for the multivariate analysis.
Median follow-up time was 42.13 months (IQ25 25.2–IQ75 72.06). The median age was 50.9 years (IQ25 43.5–IQ75 59.8). DFS at 5 years was 80.8% for IDC versus 76.2% for ILC. 5 years OS was 88.7% for IDC versus 84.3% for ILC. Multivariate analysis showed that factors that negatively affected the 5-year DFS include: clinical stage III [hazard ratio (HR) 4.2, 95% CI 3.36–5.35; p < 0.001], triple negative phenotype (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.08–1.81; p = 0.009), Ki67 ≥ 18 (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.28–2.11; p < 0.001), and lobular histological type (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.09–2.49; p = 0.017). Factors associated with a negative impact on OS were: clinical stage III (HR 4.5, 95% CI 3.15–6.54; p < 0.001), triple negative phenotype (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.69–3.48; p < 0.001), and Ki67 ≥ 18% (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.27–2.92; p = 0.02).
Our results highlight the different biology of ILC and show that long-term prognosis in terms of DFS is not as favorable as previously reported.
KeywordsLobular carcinoma Disease-free survival Breast cancer
This study did not received funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Diana Flores-Díaz, Claudia Arce-Salina, Lourdes Flores-Luna, Nancy Reynoso-Noveron, Fernando Lara-Medina, Enrique Bargallo-Rocha, Victor Pérez and Alejandro Mohar declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Juan Antonio Matus-Santos declares that he has received a Speaker Honorarium from Roche and Pfizer. Dr. Cynthia Villarreal-Garza declares that she has received a Speaker Honorarium from Roche, Pfizer and Lilly. Dr. Paula Cabrera-Galeana declares that she has received a Speaker Honorarium from Pfizer and Novartis.
Was obtain to review data that were collect as part of routine diagnosis and treatment following the ethical standards or the institutional research committee. This article does not contain any studies with animals or human participants performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Chen Z et al (2017) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a special histological type compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. PLoS ONE 12(9):1–17Google Scholar
- 2.Arps DP, Arbor A, Arbor A, Pang JC (2013) Invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features: a comparison study to invasive ductal and invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(3):719–726Google Scholar
- 3.Villarreal-Garza C et al (2017) Molecular subtypes and prognosis in young Mexican women with breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 17(3):e95–e102Google Scholar
- 4.Jayasinghe UW, Bilous AM, Boyages J (2007) Is survival from infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast different from that of infiltrating ductal carcinoma? Breast J 13(5):479–485Google Scholar
- 5.Jacobs C, Clemons M, Addison C, Robertson S, Arnaout A (2016) Issues affecting the loco-regional and systemic management of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast J 22(1):45–53Google Scholar
- 6.Sikora MJ, Jankowitz RC, Dabbs DJ, Oesterreich S (2013) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: patient response to systemic endocrine therapy and hormone response in model systems. Steroids 78(6):568–575Google Scholar
- 7.Mamtani A, King TA (2018) Lobular breast cancer: different disease, different algorithms? Surg Oncol Clin N Am 27(1):81–94Google Scholar
- 8.Arpino G, Bardou VJ, Clark GM, Elledge RM (2004) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res 6(3):7–11Google Scholar
- 9.Reis-Filho JS, King TA (2014) Lobular neoplasia. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 23:77–86Google Scholar
- 10.Lobbezoo D et al (2016) The role of histological subtype in hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer: similar survival but different therapeutic approaches. Oncotarget 7(20):29412–29419Google Scholar
- 12.Ciriello G et al (2015) Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast cancer. Cell 163(2):506–519Google Scholar
- 13.Metzger-Filho O et al (2013) Magnitude of trastuzumab benefit in patients with HER2-positive, invasive lobular breast carcinoma: results from the HERA trial. J Clin Oncol 31(16):1954–1960Google Scholar
- 14.Bharat A, Gao F, Margenthaler JA (2009) Tumor characteristics and patient outcomes are similar between invasive lobular and mixed invasive ductal/lobular breast cancers but differ from pure invasive ductal breast cancers. Am J Surg 198(4):516–519Google Scholar
- 15.Silverstein MJ et al (1994) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Is it different from infiltrating duct carcinoma? Cancer 73(6):1673–1677Google Scholar
- 16.Cristofanilli M et al (2005) Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol 23(1):41–48Google Scholar
- 17.Guiu S et al (2014) Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: how special are they for systemic therapy decisions? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 92(3):235–257Google Scholar
- 18.Adachi Y et al (2016) Comparison of clinical outcomes between luminal invasive ductal carcinoma and luminal invasive lobular carcinoma. BMC Cancer 16(1):1–9Google Scholar
- 19.Colleoni M et al (2012) Outcome of special types of luminal breast cancer. Ann Oncol 23(6):1428–1436Google Scholar
- 20.Loibl S et al (2014) Response and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 1,051 patients with infiltrating lobular breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(1):153–162Google Scholar
- 21.Pennisi A, Kieber-Emmons T, Makhoul I, Hutchins L (2016) Relevance of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 2:103–106Google Scholar
- 22.Wolff AC et al (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013Google Scholar
- 23.Hammond MEH, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, Mangu PB, Temin S (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 6(4):195–197Google Scholar
- 24.Senkus E et al (2015) Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(Supplement 5):v8–v30Google Scholar
- 25.Sánchez DJC, Rocha DEB, Valle DAE, Molina DEM, Chacón DAP (2013) Consenso Mexicano sobre diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer mamarioGoogle Scholar
- 26.Zengel B et al (2015) Comparison of the clinicopathological features of invasive ductal, invasive lobular, and mixed (invasive ductal + invasive lobular) carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer 22(4):374–381Google Scholar
- 27.Filho OM et al (2015) Relative effectiveness of letrozole compared with tamoxifen for patients with lobular carcinoma in the BIG 1-98 Trial. J Clin Oncol 33(25):2772–2778Google Scholar
- 28.Dossus L, Benusiglio PR (2015) Lobular breast cancer: incidence and genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Breast Cancer Res 17(1):1–8Google Scholar
- 29.Katz A, Saad ED, Porter P, Pusztai L (2007) Primary systemic chemotherapy of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Lancet Oncol 8(1):55–62Google Scholar
- 30.Dabbs DJ et al (2013) Lobular neoplasia of the breast revisited with emphasis on the role of E-cadherin immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol 37(7):e1–e11Google Scholar
- 31.Viale G et al (2009) Lack of prognostic significance of ‘classic’ lobular breast carcinoma: a matched, single institution series. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117(1):211–214Google Scholar
- 32.Christgen M et al (2016) Lobular breast cancer: clinical, molecular and morphological characteristics. Pathol Res Pract 212(7):583–597Google Scholar
- 33.McCart Reed AE et al (2018) Mixed ductal–lobular carcinomas: evidence for progression from ductal to lobular morphology. J Pathol 244(4):460–468Google Scholar