Skip to main content

Invasive Lobular vs. Ductal Breast Cancer: A Stage-Matched Comparison of Outcomes

Annals of Surgical Oncology volume 17, pages 1862–1869 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is less common than invasive ductal breast cancer (IDC), more difficult to detect mammographically, and usually diagnosed at a later stage. Does delayed diagnosis of ILC affect survival? We used a national registry to compare outcomes of patients with stage-matched ILC and IDC.

Methods

Query of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry identified 263,408 women diagnosed with IDC or ILC between 1993 and 2003. Survival of patients matched by T and N stage was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis.

Results

When compared with IDC, ILC was more likely to be >2 cm (43.1 vs. 32.6%; P < 0.001), lymph node positive (36.8 vs. 34.4%; P < 0.001), and ER positive (93.1 vs. 75.6%; P < 0.001). The 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was significantly better for patients with ILC than for those with IDC, before (90 vs. 88%; P < 0.001) and after matching for stage T1N0 (98 vs. 96%; P < 0.001), T2N0 (94 vs. 88%; P < 0.001), and T3N0 (92 vs. 83%, P < 0.001). The 5-year DSS for patients with nodal metastasis of ILC vs. IDC was 89% vs. 88% (P = NS) for stage T1N1, 81 vs. 73% (P < 0.001) for T2N1, and 72 vs. 56% (P < 0.001) for T3N1. Multivariate analysis identified a 14% survival benefit for ILC (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.80–0.92).

Conclusions

Stage-matched prognosis is better for patients with ILC than for those with IDC. Our findings support a different biology for ILC and are important for counseling and risk stratification.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Fisher ER, Gregorio RM, Fisher B, et al. The pathology of invasive breast cancer. A syllabus derived from findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol no. 4). Cancer. 1975;36:1–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Li CI, Anderson BO, Porter P, et al. Changing incidence rate of invasive lobular breast carcinoma among older women. Cancer. 2000;88:2561–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Martinez V, Azzopardi JG. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: incidence and variants. Histopathology. 1979;3:467–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. De Leeuw WJ, Berx G, Vos CB, et al. Simultaneous loss of E-cadherin and catenins in invasive lobular breast cancer and lobular carcinoma in situ. J Pathol. 1997;183:404–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cleton-Jansen AM. E-cadherin and loss of heterozygosity at chromosome 16 in breast carcinogenesis: different genetic pathways in ductal and lobular breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res. 2002;4:5–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Le Gal M, Ollivier L, Asselain B, et al. Mammographic features of 455 invasive lobular carcinomas. Radiology. 1992;185:705–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arpino G, Bardou VJ, Clark GM, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6:R149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cristofanilli M, Gonzalez-Angulo A, Sneige N, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:41–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Molland JG, Donnellan M, Janu NC, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma–a comparison of diagnosis, management and outcome with infiltrating duct carcinoma. Breast. 2004;13:389–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sastre-Garau X, Jouve M, Asselain B, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Clinicopathologic analysis of 975 cases with reference to data on conservative therapy and metastatic patterns. Cancer. 1996;77:113–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Silverstein MJ, Lewinsky BS, Waisman JR, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Is it different from infiltrating duct carcinoma? Cancer. 1994;73:1673–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Allemani C, Sant M, Berrino F, et al. Prognostic value of morphology and hormone receptor status in breast cancer—a population-based study. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1263–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Li CI, Moe RE, Daling JR. Risk of mortality by histologic type of breast cancer among women aged 50 to 79 years. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2149–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Toikkanen S, Pylkkanen L, Joensuu H. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast has better short- and long-term survival than invasive ductal carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:1234–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. du Toit RS, Locker AP, Ellis IO, et al. An evaluation of differences in prognosis, recurrence patterns and receptor status between invasive lobular and other invasive carcinomas of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1991;17:251–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mhuircheartaigh JN, Curran C, Hennessy E, et al. Prospective matched-pair comparison of outcome after treatment for lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2008;95:827–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Viale G, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P, et al. Lack of prognostic significance of “classic” lobular breast carcinoma: a matched, single institution series. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117:211–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jayasinghe UW, Bilous AM, Boyages J. Is survival from infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast different from that of infiltrating ductal carcinoma? Breast J. 2007;13:479–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Korhonen T, Huhtala H, Holli K. A comparison of the biological and clinical features of invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;85:23–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mersin H, Yildirim E, Gulben K, et al. Is invasive lobular carcinoma different from invasive ductal carcinoma? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:390–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ashikari R, Huvos AG, Urban JA, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 1973;31:110–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mate TP, Carter D, Fischer DB, et al. A clinical and histopathologic analysis of the results of conservation surgery and radiation therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1986;58:1995–2002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Havener L. Standards for cancer registries volume III: standards for completeness, quality, analysis, and management of data. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries 2004.

  26. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Public Use Data (1973–2005). National Cancer Institute. http://www.seer.cancer.gov. Accessed November 2008.

  27. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th ed. Springer, New York; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Powe DG, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44:73–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tubiana-Hulin M, Stevens D, Lasry S, et al. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lobular and ductal breast carcinomas: a retrospective study on 860 patients from one institution. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1228–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Katz A, Saad ED, Porter P, et al. Primary systemic chemotherapy of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:55–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wickerham DL, O’Connell MJ, Costantino JP, et al. The half century of clinical trials of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast And Bowel Project. Semin Oncol. 2008;35:522–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bouvet M, Ollila DW, Hunt KK, et al. Role of conservation therapy for invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:650–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Santiago RJ, Harris EE, Qin L, et al. Similar long-term results of breast-conservation treatment for Stage I and II invasive lobular carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: The University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer. 2005;103:2447–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Singletary SE, Patel-Parekh L, Bland KI. Treatment trends in early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg. 2005;242:281–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Work was supported by grants from the Gonda (Goldschmied) Research Laboratories of the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Saint John’s Health Center. Also supported by funding from QVC and the Fashion Footwear Association of New York Charitable Foundation (New York, NY), the Margie and Robert E. Petersen Foundation (Los Angeles, CA), Mrs. Lois Rosen (Los Angeles, CA), the Associates for Breast and Prostate Cancer Studies (Santa Monica, CA), the Family of Robert Novick (Los Angeles, CA), Ruth and Martin H. Weil Fund (Los Angeles, CA), and the Wrather Family Foundation (Los Alamos, CA).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. John Wayne Cancer Institute at Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Nabil Wasif MD & Armando E. Giuliano MD

  2. Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Melinda A. Maggard MD, MSHS & Clifford Y. Ko MD, MHSS

  3. Department of Surgery, Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Clifford Y. Ko MD, MHSS

  4. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Nabil Wasif MD

Authors
  1. Nabil Wasif MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melinda A. Maggard MD, MSHS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clifford Y. Ko MD, MHSS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Armando E. Giuliano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armando E. Giuliano MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wasif, N., Maggard, M.A., Ko, C.Y. et al. Invasive Lobular vs. Ductal Breast Cancer: A Stage-Matched Comparison of Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17, 1862–1869 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0953-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0953-z

Keywords

  • Breast Conservation Surgery
  • Male Breast Cancer
  • Invasive Ductal Cancer
  • Invasive Ductal Cancer
  • Invasive Lobular Cancer