Skip to main content

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy by subtype approximation and surgical margin

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment volume 149, pages 555–564 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) typically presents at a later stage than invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and poses unique radiographic and surgical challenges. However, current principles of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) do not distinguish between histologic subtypes, raising uncertainty about the optimal approach for patients with ILC. We studied 998 BCT patients from 1998–2007, comprised 74 % IDC, 8 % ILC, and 18 % with mixed ILC/IDC. In light of recent guidelines addressing surgical margins, specimens were assessed for margin width and biologic subtype. The Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze effects of patient and disease characteristics on local recurrence (LR). At a median of 119 months, 45 patients had an isolated LR. 10-year LR was 5.5 % for patients with IDC, 4.4 % for ILC, and 1.2 % for mixed histology (p = 0.08). The majority of ILC cases had luminal A biologic subtype (91.1 %), and analysis among all luminal A cases revealed 10-year LR of 2.6 % for IDC, 3.4 % for ILC, and 0 % for mixed tumors (p = 0.12). Patients with ILC were more likely to have initially positive surgical margins (45.0 vs 17.5 %; p < 0.001) resulting in more frequent re-excision (57.1 % vs 40.4 %; p = 0.02), though final margins were similar between ILC and IDC (p = 0.88). No LR was observed among ILC or mixed histology patients with margins <2 mm (n = 28). On multivariate analysis, histologic subtype was not associated with LR (p = 0.52). Modern approaches confer similarly favorable LR rates for ILC, IDC, and mixed histology breast cancers despite inherent histologic differences. Patients with ILC did not require more extensive surgical margins than those with IDC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Li CI et al (2003) Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA 289(11):1421–1424

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pestalozzi BC et al (2008) Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26(18):3006–3014

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Acs G et al (2001) Differential expression of E-cadherin in lobular and ductal neoplasms of the breast and its biologic and diagnostic implications. Am J Clin Pathol 115(1):85–98

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zengel B et al. (2013) Comparison of the clinicopathological features of invasive ductal, invasive lobular, and mixed (invasive ductal + invasive lobular) carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer

  5. Waljee JF et al (2008) Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15(5):1297–1303

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Keskek M et al (2004) Factors predisposing to cavity margin positivity following conservation surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 30(10):1058–1064

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Sullivan MJ et al (2007) The effect of multiple reexcisions on the risk of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 14(11):3133–3140

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Smitt MC, Horst K (2007) Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14(3):1040–1044

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van den Broek N et al (2007) Margin status and the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving treatment of lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 105(1):63–68

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moran MS et al (2014) Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88(3):553–564

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moran MS et al (2014) Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21(3):704–716

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G et al (2011) Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 378(9804):1707–1716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fisher B et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1233–1241

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Houssami N et al (2010) Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer 46(18):3219–3232

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Houssami N et al (2014) The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 21(3):717–730

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Biglia N et al (2013) Clinical-pathologic features, long term-outcome and surgical treatment in a large series of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Eur J Surg Oncol 39(5):455–460

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chung MA et al (1997) Optimal surgical treatment of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol 4(7):545–550

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Winchester DJ et al (1998) A comparative analysis of lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast: presentation, treatment, and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 186(4):416–422

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Galimberti V et al (2011) Influence of margin status on outcomes in lobular carcinoma: experience of the European Institute of Oncology. Ann Surg 253(3):580–584

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Arvold ND et al (2011) Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol 29(29):3885–3891

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Arpino G et al (2004) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res 6(3):R149–R156

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moran MS, Yang Q, Haffty BG (2009) The Yale University experience of early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) treated with breast conservation treatment (BCT): analysis of clinical-pathologic features, long-term outcomes, and molecular expression of COX-2, Bcl-2, and p53 as a function of histology. Breast J 15(6):571–578

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sastre-Garau X et al (1996) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Clinicopathologic analysis of 975 cases with reference to data on conservative therapy and metastatic patterns. Cancer 77(1):113–120

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mersin H et al (2003) Is invasive lobular carcinoma different from invasive ductal carcinoma? Eur J Surg Oncol 29(4):390–395

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Morrow M et al (2006) Selecting patients for breast-conserving therapy: the importance of lobular histology. Cancer 106(12):2563–2568

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fortunato L et al (2012) Lobular breast cancer: same survival and local control compared with ductal cancer, but should both be treated the same way? analysis of an institutional database over a 10-year period. Ann Surg Oncol 19(4):1107–1114

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Toikkanen S, Pylkkanen L, Joensuu H (1997) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast has better short- and long-term survival than invasive ductal carcinoma. Br J Cancer 76(9):1234–1240

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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):516–519

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cristofanilli M et al (2005) Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol 23(1):41–48

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rakha EA et al (2008) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer 44(1):73–83

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mate TP et al (1986) A clinical and histopathologic analysis of the results of conservation surgery and radiation therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. Cancer 58(9):1995–2002

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Iorfida M et al (2012) Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(2):713–723

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hussien M et al (2003) Surgical treatment for invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast 12(1):23–35

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mariotto A et al (2002) Trends in use of adjuvant multi-agent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for breast cancer in the United States: 1975–1999. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(21):1626–1634

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Harlan LC et al (2006) Community-based use of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early-stage breast cancer: 1987–2000. J Clin Oncol 24(6):872–877

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Perou CM et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Carey LA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295(21):2492–2502

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sorlie T et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98(19):10869–10874

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, MA, USA

    Lior Z. Braunstein

  2. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Jane E. Brock

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Yu-Hui Chen

  4. Departments of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dana 1622, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Linh Truong, Nils D. Arvold & Jay R. Harris

  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Andrea L. Russo

Authors
  1. Lior Z. Braunstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jane E. Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu-Hui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linh Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea L. Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nils D. Arvold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jay R. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jay R. Harris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braunstein, L.Z., Brock, J.E., Chen, YH. et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy by subtype approximation and surgical margin. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149, 555–564 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3273-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3273-y

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Invasive lobular carcinoma
  • Local recurrence
  • Breast-conserving surgery
  • Lumpectomy
  • Biologic subtype