Comparison of long-term outcome between clinically high risk lobular versus ductal breast cancer: a propensity score matched study.

Abemaciclib Invasive ductal breast cancer Invasive lobular breast cancer MonarchE trial Recurrence

Journal

EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2024
Historique:
received: 24 12 2023
revised: 29 02 2024
accepted: 01 03 2024
medline: 28 3 2024
pubmed: 28 3 2024
entrez: 28 3 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Abemaciclib is currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, lymph node (LN)-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (BC). In a real-world setting the clinicopathologic features of patients potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib remain to be defined. There are conflicting data regarding the biological behavior and long-term outcomes across invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In our study we retrospectively assessed the real-world data and long-term outcome of selected high-risk features ILC compared to IDC, according to the MonarchE trial inclusion criteria. We identified 15,071 patients who got surgery at the European Institute of Oncology for a first primary, non-metastatic, HR-positive, HER2-negative BC from 2000 to 2008. 11,981 (79.5%) patients had an IDC and 1524 (10.1%) an ILC. The remaining 1566 patients (10.4%) had either combined ductal and lobular breast cancer or another histological breast cancer subtype. According to the eligibility criteria of the MonarchE study, we identified two high-risk groups, based on high number of positive lymph nodes, large tumor size, or a high cellular proliferation as measured by tumor grade or biomarkers. Patients were matched by propensity score. A total of 2872 (21.3%) patients were selected as clinically high-risk, including 361/1524 ILC (23.7%) and 2511/11,981 IDC (21%). 322 high-risk ILC were matched with similar high-risk IDC. The median follow-up was 13.2 years for survival. In the matched set, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (log-rank P = 0.09) and overall survival (OS) (log-rank P = 0.48) were not statistically significantly different between the two histological groups. For IDC patients, the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates (95% CI) were 77.7% (72.9-82.2) and 57.3% (51.7-63.1) respectively, compared to the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates of ILC patients that were 75.5% (70.6-80.2) and 50.7% (45.0-56.6). The 5-year and 10-year distant relapse free survival (DRFS) rates were 80% (75.3-84.2) and 65.3% (59.8-70.7) in IDC cohort, compared to the 5-year and the 10-year DRFS rates of 78.7% (74.0-83.1) and 61.5% (55.9-67.1) in the ILC cohort. Such data match the recent outcomes efficacy results of the MonarchE control arm. More patients in the ILC (n = 17) than in the IDC group (n = 10) developed axillary recurrence. At multivariable analysis, stratified for specific clinical features, age <35 years, pT2-3, axillary involvement with more than 10 positive axillary nodes were found to be predictors of unfavorable IDFS and OS in the overall matched high-risk population. Findings from this matched cohort study reported similar IDFS and DRFS rates for high risk HR positive early BC when compared to the control arm overall IDFS and DRFS rates reported from the MonarchE trial. Our study demonstrated rates of concordant long-term outcome status beyond histologic subtype. These data support an escalation strategy for these two different histological entities when diagnosed with high-risk features. In our dataset approximately 21% rate of high-risk HR positive early BC patients are potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib treatment. Umberto Veronesi Foundation.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Abemaciclib is currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, lymph node (LN)-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (BC). In a real-world setting the clinicopathologic features of patients potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib remain to be defined. There are conflicting data regarding the biological behavior and long-term outcomes across invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In our study we retrospectively assessed the real-world data and long-term outcome of selected high-risk features ILC compared to IDC, according to the MonarchE trial inclusion criteria.
Methods UNASSIGNED
We identified 15,071 patients who got surgery at the European Institute of Oncology for a first primary, non-metastatic, HR-positive, HER2-negative BC from 2000 to 2008. 11,981 (79.5%) patients had an IDC and 1524 (10.1%) an ILC. The remaining 1566 patients (10.4%) had either combined ductal and lobular breast cancer or another histological breast cancer subtype. According to the eligibility criteria of the MonarchE study, we identified two high-risk groups, based on high number of positive lymph nodes, large tumor size, or a high cellular proliferation as measured by tumor grade or biomarkers. Patients were matched by propensity score.
Findings UNASSIGNED
A total of 2872 (21.3%) patients were selected as clinically high-risk, including 361/1524 ILC (23.7%) and 2511/11,981 IDC (21%). 322 high-risk ILC were matched with similar high-risk IDC. The median follow-up was 13.2 years for survival. In the matched set, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (log-rank P = 0.09) and overall survival (OS) (log-rank P = 0.48) were not statistically significantly different between the two histological groups. For IDC patients, the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates (95% CI) were 77.7% (72.9-82.2) and 57.3% (51.7-63.1) respectively, compared to the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates of ILC patients that were 75.5% (70.6-80.2) and 50.7% (45.0-56.6). The 5-year and 10-year distant relapse free survival (DRFS) rates were 80% (75.3-84.2) and 65.3% (59.8-70.7) in IDC cohort, compared to the 5-year and the 10-year DRFS rates of 78.7% (74.0-83.1) and 61.5% (55.9-67.1) in the ILC cohort. Such data match the recent outcomes efficacy results of the MonarchE control arm. More patients in the ILC (n = 17) than in the IDC group (n = 10) developed axillary recurrence. At multivariable analysis, stratified for specific clinical features, age <35 years, pT2-3, axillary involvement with more than 10 positive axillary nodes were found to be predictors of unfavorable IDFS and OS in the overall matched high-risk population.
Interpretation UNASSIGNED
Findings from this matched cohort study reported similar IDFS and DRFS rates for high risk HR positive early BC when compared to the control arm overall IDFS and DRFS rates reported from the MonarchE trial. Our study demonstrated rates of concordant long-term outcome status beyond histologic subtype. These data support an escalation strategy for these two different histological entities when diagnosed with high-risk features. In our dataset approximately 21% rate of high-risk HR positive early BC patients are potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib treatment.
Funding UNASSIGNED
Umberto Veronesi Foundation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38545425
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102552
pii: S2589-5370(24)00131-7
pmc: PMC10965498
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

102552

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Authors.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Prof. Giuseppe Curigliano: Grants or contracts from any entity: Merck; Consulting fees: BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck, Seagen, Ellipsis, Gilead, Menarini; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Lilly, Pfizer, Relay, Gilead, Novartis; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Daichii Sankyo. Dr. Emilia Montagna: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Novartis.

Auteurs

Francesca Magnoni (F)

Division of Breast Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
European Cancer Prevention Organization (ECP), 20141, Milan, Italy.

Giovanni Corso (G)

Division of Breast Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Italy.
European Cancer Prevention Organization (ECP), 20141, Milan, Italy.

Patrick Maisonneuve (P)

Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Beatrice Bianchi (B)

Division of Breast Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Giuseppe Accardo (G)

Division of Breast Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Claudia Sangalli (C)

Data Management, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Giulia Massari (G)

Division of Breast Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Anna Rotili (A)

Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.

Luca Nicosia (L)

Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.

Filippo Pesapane (F)

Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.

Emilia Montagna (E)

Division of Medical Senology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.

Giovanni Mazzarol (G)

Division of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Viviana Galimberti (V)

Division of Breast Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Paolo Veronesi (P)

Division of Breast Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Italy.

Giuseppe Curigliano (G)

Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Italy.
Division of Experimental Therapeutics, Division of Medical Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Classifications MeSH