Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ductal compared to lobular carcinoma of the breast: a meta-analysis of published trials including 1,764 lobular breast cancer

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast is associated with greater oestrogen receptor expression and poorer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, when compared to infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC). In order to compare the pathological complete response rate (pCR) and breast conserving surgery (BCS) in patients with ILC versus IDC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify studies that investigated pCR, clinical response and BCS in patients with ILC that were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Random-effect models were adopted to estimate the summary odds ratio (OR), and the publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger’s regression asymmetry test. Seventeen studies were included (one randomized controlled trial, three prospective series and 13 retrospective trials), for a total of 12,645 IDCs and 1,764 ILCs to be compared. Ductal carcinoma of the breast was associated with a better pCR (from 5.9 to 16.7 %; OR = 3.1, 95 % CI 2.48–3.87, P < 0.00001) and rate of BCS (from 35.4 to 54.8 %; OR = 2.1, 95 % CI 1.8–2.45, P < 0.00001) compared to ILC. The overall pCR rates and BCS decreased in the ILCs compared with IDC when treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orvieto E, Maiorano E, Bottiglieri L et al (2008) Clinicopathologic characteristics of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: results of an analysis of 530 cases from a single institution. Cancer 113:1511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Winchester DJ, Chang HR, Graves TA et al (1998) A comparative analysis of lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast: presentation, treatment, and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 186:416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E 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 26:3006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L et al (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 13:2329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF et al (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11:5678

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE et al (2011) Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol 29:3351

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al. Meta-analysis Results from the Collaborative Trials in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer (CTNeoBC). Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-14-20

  10. Semiglazov VF, Semiglazov VV, Dashyan GA, Ziltsova EK, Ivanov VG, Bozhok AA, Melnikova OA, Paltuev RM, Kletzel A, Berstein LM (2007) Phase 2 randomized trial of primary endocrine therapy versus chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer 110(2):244–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lips EH, Mukhtar RA, Yau C, de Ronde JJ, Livasy C, Carey LA, Loo CE, Vrancken-Peeters MJ, Sonke GS, Berry DA, Van’t Veer LJ, Esserman LJ, Wesseling J, Rodenhuis S, Shelley Hwang E, I-SPY TRIAL Investigators (2012) Lobular histology and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136(1):35–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cocquyt VF, Blondeel PN, Depypere HT, Praet MM, Schelfhout VR, Silva OE, Hurley J, Serreyn RF, Daems KK, Van Belle SJ (2003) Different responses to preoperative chemotherapy for invasive lobular and invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 29(4):361–367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cristofanilli M, Gonzalez-Angulo A, Sneige N, Kau SW, Broglio K, Theriault RL, Valero V, Buzdar AU, Kuerer H, Buccholz TA, Hortobagyi GN (2005) Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol 23(1):41–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Delpech Y, Coutant C, Hsu L, Barranger E, Iwamoto T, Barcenas CH, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R, Esteva FJ, Pusztai L (2013) Clinical benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen receptor-positive invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas. Br J Cancer 108(2):285–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzal F, Mittlboeck M, Steger G, Bartsch R, Rudas M, Dubsky P, Riedl O, Jakesz R, Gnant M (2012) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the rate of breast conservation in lobular-type breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 19(2):519–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldstein NS, Decker D, Severson D, Schell S, Vicini F, Margolis J, Dekhne NS (2007) Molecular classification system identifies invasive breast carcinoma patients who are most likely and those who are least likely to achieve a complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 110(8):1687–1696

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mathieu MC, Rouzier R, Llombart-Cussac A, Sideris L, Koscielny S, Travagli JP, Contesso G, Delaloge S, Spielmann M (2004) The poor responsiveness of infiltrating lobular breast carcinomas to neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be explained by their biological profile. Eur J Cancer 40(3):342–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Prokop E, Hitzl W (2005) Pathological complete response rates comparing 3 versus 6 cycles of epidoxorubicin and docetaxel in the neoadjuvant setting of patients with stage II and III breast cancer. Anticancer Drugs 16(8):867–870 Erratum in: Anticancer Drugs. 2006 Mar;17(3):363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Straver ME, Rutgers EJ, Rodenhuis S, Linn SC, Loo CE, Wesseling J, Russell NS, Oldenburg HS, Antonini N, Vrancken Peeters MT (2010) The relevance of breast cancer subtypes in the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 17(9):2411–2418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sullivan PS, Apple SK (2009) Should histologic type be taken into account when considering neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast carcinoma? Breast J 15(2):146–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tubiana-Hulin M, Stevens D, Lasry S, Guinebretière JM, Bouita L, Cohen-Solal C, Cherel P, Rouëssé J (2006) Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lobular and ductal breast carcinomas: a retrospective study on 860 patients from one institution. Ann Oncol 17(8):1228–1233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wenzel C, Bartsch R, Hussian D, Pluschnig U, Altorjai G, Zielinski CC, Lang A, Haid A, Jakesz R, Gnant M, Steger GG (2007) Invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma of breast differ in response following neoadjuvant therapy with epidoxorubicin and docetaxel + G-CSF. Breast Cancer Res Treat 104(1):109–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bollet MA, Savignoni A, Pierga JY et al (2008) High rates of breast conservation for large ductal and lobular invasive carcinomas combining multimodality strategies. Br J Cancer 98(4):734–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nagao T, Kinoshita T, Hojo T, Tsuda H, Tamura K, Fujiwara Y (2012) The differences in the histological types of breast cancer and the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the relationship between the outcome and the clinicopathological characteristics. Breast 21(3):289–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pirvulescu C, Loibl S, Von Minckwitz G et al. Response pattern in 844 patients with infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 15 suppl, abstr 541

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vincent-Salomon A, Pierga JY, Gautier C et al (2005) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast: a poorer response rate but not a worse prognosis than invasive ductal carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94(suppl 1):S231

    Google Scholar 

  27. Luporsi E, André F, Spyratos F et al (2012) Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(3):895–915

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Colleoni M, Bagnardi V, Rotmensz N et al (2009) Increasing steroid hormone receptor expression defines breast cancer subtypes non-responsive to preoperative chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116:359–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Colleoni M, Viale G, Zahrieh D et al (2008) Expression of ER, PgR, HER1, HER2, and response: a study of preoperative chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 19:465–472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Colleoni M, Viale G, Zahrieh D et al (2004) Chemotherapy is more effective in patients with breast cancer not expressing steroid hormone receptors: a study of preoperative treatment. Clin Cancer Res 10:6622–6628

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cuppone F, Bria E, Carlini P et al (2008) Taxanes as primary chemotherapy for early breast cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cancer 113(2):238–246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dieras V, Fumoleau P, Romieu G et al (2004) Randomized parallel study of doxorubicin plus paclitaxel and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:4958–4965

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dixon JM, Renshaw L, Dixon J, Thomas J (2011) Invasive lobular carcinoma: response to neoadjuvant letrozole therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(3):871–877

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Krainick-Strobel UE, Lichtenegger W, Wallwiener D et al (2008) Neoadjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive breast cancer: a phase IIb/III trial to investigate optimal duration of preoperative endocrine therapy. BMC Cancer 26(8):62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Charehbili A, Fontein DB, Kroep JR et al (2013) Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for endocrine sensitive breast cancer: A systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.06.001

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa SD et al (2013) Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 31(29):3623–3630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, Porcher R, Espié M, Lehmann-Che J, de Roquancourt A, Hamy AS, Cuvier C, Vercellino L, Hindié E (2011) Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(3):426–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, Sardanelli F, Irwig L, Mamounas EP, von Minckwitz G, Brennan ME, Ciatto S (2013) Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(5):321–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kong X, Moran MS, Zhang N, Haffty B, Yang Q (2011) Meta-analysis confirms achieving pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts favourable prognosis for breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 47(14):2084–2090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Treviglio, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio, BG, Italy

    Fausto Petrelli & Sandro Barni

Authors
  1. Fausto Petrelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandro Barni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fausto Petrelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petrelli, F., Barni, S. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ductal compared to lobular carcinoma of the breast: a meta-analysis of published trials including 1,764 lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 142, 227–235 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2751-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2751-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation