Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 13, pp 4280–4286 | Cite as

Surgical Options and Locoregional Recurrence in Patients Diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast

  • Yasuaki SagaraEmail author
  • William T. Barry
  • Melissa Anne Mallory
  • Ines Vaz-Luis
  • Fatih Aydogan
  • Jane E. Brock
  • Eric P. Winer
  • Mehra Golshan
  • Otto Metzger-Filho
Breast Oncology



Recent consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) recommend the use of “no ink on tumor” as the standard for an adequate margin. The recommendations extend to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), but the data on this subset are limited. We reviewed our modern dataset on margin status with outcomes of ILC.


We performed a retrospective cohort study on 736 patients with a diagnosis of stage I–III ILC treated at our cancer center between May 1997 and December 2007. Clinicopathologic data were extracted from the Clinical Research Information Systems Database. Margin status was defined using the latest ASCO/ASTRO/SSO consensus guideline criteria.


The initial surgery performed was mastectomy in 352 patients (48 %) and BCS in 384 patients (52 %). In multivariate analysis, tumor size and multifocality were significantly associated with high rates of mastectomy and positive surgical margins at initial BCS. After initial BCS, additional surgery was performed in 92 patients (24 %). During a 72-month median follow-up period, 12 (3.1 %) ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences (IBTR) and 5 (1.3 %) other locoregional recurrences (LRR) were observed. Patients with margins with ink on tumor who did not receive further surgery were found to have significantly increased LRR [odds ratio (OR) 5.5; p = 0.02] and IBTR (OR 8.5; p = 0.006), whereas patients with close margins (1–3 mm) and margins within 1 mm were not.


Our study supports the validity of using “no ink on tumor” as the standard for a negative margin for pure and mixed ILC treated with multimodality therapy.


Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Negative Margin Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence Close Margin Margin Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure Grant (PDF14302599) and by the NIH Grant R25CA089017. Dr. Sonal Jhaveri at Dana-Farber’s Postdoc and Graduate Student Affairs Office (PGSAO) edited an earlier version of the manuscript. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and generosity of Linda Cutone and Hakuaikai Medical Cooperation.


The authors have no conflicts of interest concerning this study.


  1. 1.
    Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR, Moe RE. Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA. 2003;289:1421–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoder BJ, Wilkinson EJ, Massoll NA. Molecular and morphologic distinctions between infiltrating ductal and lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast J. 2007;13:172–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchanan CL, Flynn LW, Murray MP, et al. Is pleomorphic lobular carcinoma really a distinct clinical entity? J Surg Oncol. 2008;98:314–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs M, Fan F, Tawfik O. Clinicopathologic and biomarker analysis of invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma as compared with invasive classic lobular carcinoma: an experience in our institution and review of the literature. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2012;16:185–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iorfida M, Maiorano E, Orvieto E, et al. Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133:713–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yeatman T, Cantor A, Smith T. Tumor biology of infiltrating lobular carcinoma: implications for management. Ann Surg. 1995;222:549–61.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E, et al. 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. 2008;26:3006–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan SM, Behranwala KA, Trott PA, et al. A retrospective study comparing the individual modalities of triple assessment in the preoperative diagnosis of invasive lobular breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2002;28:203–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arpino G, Bardou VJ, Clark GM, Elledge RM. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6:R149–56.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krecke KN, Gisvold JJ. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic findings and extent of disease at diagnosis in 184 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:957–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arps DP, Healy P, Zhao L, et al. Invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features: a comparison study to invasive ductal and invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138:719–26.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the national cancer database, 2004-2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1296–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arps DP, Jorns JM, Zhao L, et al. Reexcision rates of invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features compared with invasive ductal carcinomas and invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:4152–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wanis ML, Wong JA, Rodriguez S, et al. Rate of re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for invasive lobular carcinoma. Am Surg. 2013;79:1119–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mai KT, Yazdi HM, Isotalo PA. Resection margin status in lumpectomy specimens of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;60:29–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore MM, Borossa G, Imbrie JZ, et al. Association of infiltrating lobular carcinoma with positive surgical margins after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg. 2000;231:877–82.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blichert-Toft M, Rose C, Andersen JA, et al. Danish randomized trial comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy: six years of life-table analysis. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1992;(11):19–25.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arriagada R, Le MG, Rochard F, Contesso G. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1558–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. (2003) Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: The National Cancer Institute randomized trial. Cancer. 98:697–702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1143–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, Jeong JH. 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. 2002;347:1233–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Truin W, Roumen RM, Siesling S, et al. Patients with invasive lobular breast cancer are less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery: a population based study in the Netherlands. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1471–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ, et al. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1502–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sledge GW, Mamounas EP, Hortobagyi GN, et al. Past, present, and future challenges in breast cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1979–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mai KT, Yazdi HM, Isotalo P. Resection margin status in lumpectomy specimens of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;60:29–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moore MM, Borossa G, Imbrie JZ, et al. Association of infiltrating lobular carcinoma with positive surgical margins after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg. 2000;231:877–82.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van den Broek N, van der Sangen MJC, van de Poll-Franse L V, et al. Margin status and the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving treatment of lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;105:63–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Galimberti V, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Influence of margin status on outcomes in lobular carcinoma: experience of the European Institute of Oncology. Ann Surg. 2011;253:580–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasuaki Sagara
    • 1
    Email author
  • William T. Barry
    • 2
  • Melissa Anne Mallory
    • 1
  • Ines Vaz-Luis
    • 3
  • Fatih Aydogan
    • 1
  • Jane E. Brock
    • 4
  • Eric P. Winer
    • 3
  • Mehra Golshan
    • 1
  • Otto Metzger-Filho
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and Computational BiologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations