Mixed Invasive Ductal and Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Prognosis and the Importance of Histologic Grade.
Breast cancer, early
Carcinoma, lobular
Invasive ductal carcinoma, breast
Outcomes research
Tumor grading
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
19
06
2018
accepted:
31
08
2018
pubmed:
7
12
2018
medline:
1
7
2020
entrez:
7
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The diagnosis of mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDC-L) in clinical practice is often associated with uncertainty related to its prognosis and response to systemic therapies. With the increasing recognition of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) as a distinct disease subtype, questions surrounding IDC-L become even more relevant. In this study, we took advantage of a detailed clinical database to compare IDC-L and ILC regarding clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics, prognostic power of histologic grade, and survival outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we identified 811 patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer with IDC-L or ILC. Descriptive statistics were performed to compare baseline clinicopathologic characteristics and treatments. Survival rates were subsequently analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the Cox proportional hazards model. Patients with ILC had more commonly multifocal disease, low to intermediate histologic grade, and HER2-negative disease. Histologic grade was prognostic for patients with IDC-L but had no significant discriminatory power in patients with ILC. Among postmenopausal women, those with IDC-L had significantly better outcomes when compared with those with ILC: disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.95). Finally, postmenopausal women treated with an aromatase inhibitor had more favorable DFS and OS than those treated with tamoxifen only (OS adjusted HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87), which was similar for both histologic types ( IDC-L tumors have a better prognosis than ILC tumors, particularly among postmenopausal women. Histologic grade is an important prognostic factor in IDC-L but not in ILC. This study compared mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDC-L) with invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) to assess the overall prognosis, the prognostic role of histologic grade, and response to systemic therapy. It was found that patients with IDC-L tumors have a better prognosis than ILC, particularly among postmenopausal women, which may impact follow-up strategies. Moreover, although histologic grade failed to stratify the risk of ILC, it showed an important prognostic power in IDC-L, thus highlighting its clinical utility to guide treatment decisions of IDC-L. Finally, the disease-free survival advantage of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors over tamoxifen in ILC was consistent in IDC-L.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDC-L) in clinical practice is often associated with uncertainty related to its prognosis and response to systemic therapies. With the increasing recognition of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) as a distinct disease subtype, questions surrounding IDC-L become even more relevant. In this study, we took advantage of a detailed clinical database to compare IDC-L and ILC regarding clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics, prognostic power of histologic grade, and survival outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this retrospective cohort study, we identified 811 patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer with IDC-L or ILC. Descriptive statistics were performed to compare baseline clinicopathologic characteristics and treatments. Survival rates were subsequently analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS
Patients with ILC had more commonly multifocal disease, low to intermediate histologic grade, and HER2-negative disease. Histologic grade was prognostic for patients with IDC-L but had no significant discriminatory power in patients with ILC. Among postmenopausal women, those with IDC-L had significantly better outcomes when compared with those with ILC: disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.95). Finally, postmenopausal women treated with an aromatase inhibitor had more favorable DFS and OS than those treated with tamoxifen only (OS adjusted HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87), which was similar for both histologic types (
CONCLUSION
IDC-L tumors have a better prognosis than ILC tumors, particularly among postmenopausal women. Histologic grade is an important prognostic factor in IDC-L but not in ILC.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
This study compared mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDC-L) with invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) to assess the overall prognosis, the prognostic role of histologic grade, and response to systemic therapy. It was found that patients with IDC-L tumors have a better prognosis than ILC, particularly among postmenopausal women, which may impact follow-up strategies. Moreover, although histologic grade failed to stratify the risk of ILC, it showed an important prognostic power in IDC-L, thus highlighting its clinical utility to guide treatment decisions of IDC-L. Finally, the disease-free survival advantage of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors over tamoxifen in ILC was consistent in IDC-L.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30518616
pii: theoncologist.2018-0363
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0363
pmc: PMC6656459
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e441-e449Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K08 CA191058
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2018.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.
Références
Cancer. 2000 Jun 1;88(11):2561-9
pubmed: 10861434
JAMA. 2003 Mar 19;289(11):1421-4
pubmed: 12636465
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jan 1;23(1):41-8
pubmed: 15625359
Br J Cancer. 2005 Oct 31;93(9):1046-52
pubmed: 16175185
Lancet Oncol. 2007 Jan;8(1):55-62
pubmed: 17196511
Am J Surg Pathol. 2007 Mar;31(3):427-37
pubmed: 17325485
Acta Oncol. 2007;46(6):803-9
pubmed: 17653904
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Sep;111(1):121-7
pubmed: 17929165
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Mar;114(2):243-50
pubmed: 18404368
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 20;26(18):3006-14
pubmed: 18458044
Am J Surg. 2009 Oct;198(4):516-9
pubmed: 19800459
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jul;17(7):1862-9
pubmed: 20162457
Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010 Feb;27(1):49-61
pubmed: 20306830
World J Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun 21;8:51
pubmed: 20565965
Ann Oncol. 2012 Jun;23(6):1428-36
pubmed: 22039080
Ann Oncol. 2012 Nov;23(11):2859-65
pubmed: 22745216
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Apr;138(3):719-26
pubmed: 23535842
Breast Cancer. 2015 Jul;22(4):374-81
pubmed: 23925582
Breast Care (Basel). 2013 May;8(2):149-54
pubmed: 24415964
Breast Cancer Res. 2015 Jan 30;17:12
pubmed: 25849106
Lancet. 2015 Oct 3;386(10001):1341-1352
pubmed: 26211827
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Sep 1;33(25):2772-9
pubmed: 26215945
Cell. 2015 Oct 8;163(2):506-19
pubmed: 26451490
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;34(16):1872-81
pubmed: 26926684
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 4;7(1):10380
pubmed: 28871133
Cancer. 1996 Jan 1;77(1):113-20
pubmed: 8630916