Abstract
Purpose
Many studies have shown that the prognosis of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is better than that of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). However, both disorders exhibit different prognoses according to molecular subtype, and the prognosis of ILC subtypes might depend on their hormone receptor positivity rate. This study clarified the prognosis of ILC and IDC in each subtype and examined the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in luminal ILC.
Methods
We planned the analysis using data from the Breast Cancer Registry in Japan. Because it was presumed that there are differences in characteristics between ILC and IDC, we created matched cohorts using exact matching to compare their prognoses. We compared the prognosis of ILC and IDC for each subtype. We also compared the prognosis of luminal ILC between the CT and non-CT groups.
Results
For all subtypes, the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of ILC were poorer than those of IDC. In the analysis by each subtype, no statistically significant difference was found in DFS and OS in luminal human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2), HER2, and triple-negative cohorts; however, luminal ILC had significantly poorer DFS and OS than luminal IDC. The CT effects on the prognosis of luminal ILC were greater in more advanced cases.
Conclusion
Luminal ILC had a poorer prognosis than luminal IDC, contributing to the worse prognosis of ILC than that of IDC in the overall cohort. Different therapeutic approaches from luminal IDC are essential for a better prognosis of luminal ILC.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) constitutes 5–15% of all breast carcinomas and its pathological and clinical features differ from those of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). ILC is more likely to be low or intermediate grade, hormone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative than IDC [1,2,3]. Therefore, it is considered to have a better prognosis than IDC [1]. Alternatively, recent reports have suggested that the long-term prognosis of ILC is poorer than that of IDC [3,4,5]. In IDC, prognosis differs widely according to molecular subtype [6]. It has further been reported that each molecular subtype has different outcomes in ILC, as in IDC [7]. Therefore, a better prognosis in ILC might result from the difference in the distribution of molecular subtypes between ILC and IDC. Additionally, the effect of chemotherapy (CT) on ILC has been reported to be inferior to that on IDC [1,2,3]. However, it is also apparent that the luminal subtype has less chemosensitivity than other subtypes of IDC [8]. Therefore, lower chemosensitivity in ILC might also be related to the higher number of hormone receptor-positive cases in ILC. Overall, how the ILC subtype affects prognosis and chemosensitivity remains unclear. Although ILC is usually not considered a factor in determining treatment, if the prognoses and chemosensitivity of ILC are different from those of IDC, ILC should be approached with different adjuvant therapy. In this study, we compared the prognosis of ILC and IDC for each subtype and examined the effectiveness of adjuvant CT in patients with luminal ILC. As ILC accounts for only a small proportion of breast cancer cases, the data from one institution were insufficient for more accurate analyses. Therefore, we designed the analyses to resolve this issue by using the Japanese Breast Cancer Registry (JBCR), which has collected the clinical information of patients with breast cancer in Japan since 2004 [9, 10].
Methods
Data source
This study was conducted using the JBCR managed by the National Clinical Database (NCD), which is a platform for a nationwide registry in Japan. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society originally managed the registry in 2012 and was supported by the Public Health Research Foundation (Tokyo, Japan) until 2011 [11]. The JBCR contains records of more than 600,000 patients with breast cancer from more than 1,400 institutions in Japan [9]. Affiliated institutions provide data on newly diagnosed primary breast cancers using a web-based system. In addition, the data cover demographic and clinicopathological characteristics; survival data, including disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS); and therapies, such as types of surgery, CT, endocrine therapy, and radiotherapy. The survival data in the registry were obtained every 5 years from the first treatment, including preoperative therapy and surgery, until 10 years. The TNM classification is registered based on the Unio Internationalis Contra Cancrum system [12], and the histological classification is registered based on the World Health Organization classification [13].
Study patients
Overall, 318,338 patients with breast cancer were registered between 2004 and 2012. We selected 250,736 patients diagnosed with IDC or ILC. Patients with distant metastasis, those who did not undergo surgery, those who received preoperative therapy, and those with bilateral breast cancer were excluded.
Furthermore, hormone receptor (HR) expression was considered positive if at least 1% of nuclei in tumor cells were stained using immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR). Human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) overexpression was defined as IHC 3 + and/or a positive fluorescent in situ hybridization test according to the manufacturer’s criteria. Subtypes were categorized as follows: luminal (HR-positive and HER2-negative), luminal HER2 (HR-positive and HER2-positive), HER2 (HR-negative and HER2-positive), and triple-negative (TN) (HR-negative and HER2-negative).
Outcome
DFS and OS were the primary outcomes of this study. DFS was defined as the interval between the date of surgery and the time of local or distant recurrence or death from any cause. OS was defined as the time interval between the date of surgery and the date of death from any cause.
Statistical analysis
We tabulated the clinicopathological features of the patients with IDC and ILC. To evaluate the prognosis of each subtype, we compared DFS and OS for IDC and ILC in an exactly matched cohort based on patient age, menopausal status, tumor size, ER, PR, HER2, lymph node status, and initial surgical treatment at a 1:1 ratio. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognoses were compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for survival.
Furthermore, to evaluate the chemosensitivity of luminal ILC, we selected patients with pT2N0M0 or pT1-2N1M0 ILC who underwent mastectomy and endocrine therapy. Patients were categorized into an endocrine therapy-only group (ET) and an endocrine therapy and CT group (ET + CT). They were matched based on their age group, menopause status, tumor size, ER and PR status, and use of post-surgery radiotherapy at a 1:1 ratio. We compared the DFS and OS between the two groups.
All tests were two-sided, and statistical significance was set at a p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Results
Patient characteristics
Overall, 207,428 patients were enrolled after selection based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 10-year follow-up data were available for 136,654, and we examined 130,949 cases of IDC and 5,705 cases of ILC.
Compared with IDC tumors, the ILC tumors tended to be larger, and more often hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative (Table 1). ILC was also associated with lymph node positivity.
Prognosis for each molecular subtype
After matching, we identified 5,633 patients with IDC and 5,633 with ILC for prognostic analysis (Fig. 1; Table 2). For all subtypes, the 10-year DFS rate was 79.1 and 76.6% in IDC and ILC, respectively (p = 0.04; hazard ratio, 1.10 [95%CI, 1.00–1.21]) (Fig. 2). The 10-year DFS rates in the IDC and ILC groups were 81.2 and 78.0% in the luminal group (p = 0.01; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95%CI, 1.04–1.30]), 75.0 and 71.1% in the HER2 group (p = 0.72; hazard ratio, 1.13 [95%CI, 0.59–2.1], 74.3 and 73.2% in the luminal HER2 group (p = 0.81; hazard ratio, 0.95 [95%CI, 0.62–1.45]), and 62.6 and 67.7% in the TN group (p = 0.21, hazard ratio, 0.86 [95%CI, 0.67–1.09]), respectively (Fig. 3).
The 10-year OS rate was 87.2 and 84.7% for IDC and ILC, respectively, for all subtypes (p < 0.01; hazard ratio, 1.23 [95%CI, 1.09–1.39]) (Fig. 2). The 10-year OS rates in IDC and ILC were 89.1 and 86.0% in the luminal group (p < 0.01; hazard ratio, 1.42 [95%CI, 1.22–1.65]), 78.2 and 86.4% in the HER2 group (p = 0.35; hazard ratio, 0.67 [95%CI, 0.29–1.57]), 81.1 and 85.9% in the luminal HER2 group (p = 0.74; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95%CI, 0.52–1.59]), and 70.4 and 73.0% in the TN group (p = 0.28; hazard ratio, 0.86 [95%CI, 0.65–1.13]), respectively (Fig. 4).
The effects of CT
Among patients with ILC who underwent mastectomy and endocrine therapy, we identified 332 and 113 patients with pT2N0 who underwent ET only and ET + CT treatment, respectively. In addition, 130 and 185 patients with pT1-2N1 underwent ET only and ET + CT treatment, respectively. After matching, we identified 95 pairs of ET + CT and ET-only patients in the pT2N0 cohort (Table 3) and 83 pairs in the pT1-2N1 cohort (Table 4).
In the pT2N0 cohort, the 10-year DFS rate was 82.1 and 87.4% in the ET + CT and ET-only groups, respectively (p = 0.99; hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.42–2.42]). The 10-year OS rate of the ET + CT and ET-only groups was 93.5 and 94.0%, respectively (p = 0.89; hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.29–4.11]). In the pT1-2N1 cohort, the ET-only and ET + CT groups had a 10-year DFS rate of 54.2 and 77.0%, respectively (p = 0.35; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.36–1.44]). The 10-year OS rate in the ET-only and ET + CT groups was 62.0 and 94.8%, respectively (p = 0.01; hazard ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08–0.78]) (Fig. 5).
Discussion
Our study showed that the DFS and OS of ILC were lower than those of IDC in the overall cohort. Furthermore, luminal type accounted for most of the overall cohort, and the DFS and OS of luminal ILC were lower than those of luminal IDC. Our results were consistent with the findings of recent reports that the long-term prognosis for ILC is poorer than that for IDC [3,4,5], and further revealed that the poor prognosis in ILC is because the prognosis of ILC is poorer than that of IDC in the luminal type, which accounts for most ILC. In comparison, no consistent results were found for DFS or OS in the luminal HER2 and HER2 groups. In the TN group, the DFS of IDC was lower than that of ILC, and the same result was observed for OS. However, the limited number of patients may have led to the lack of statistically significant differences. Therefore, further studies with larger data are needed to clarify the prognosis of the luminal HER2, HER2, and TN cohorts.
Several studies have compared survival between IDC and ILC regarding overall subtypes. However, few have compared the prognosis between IDC- and ILC-stratified subtypes. For example, Yang et al. [14] used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and compared the prognosis between 29,199 IDC and 29,199 ILC cases selected using propensity score matching. They found that ILC had no difference in prognosis from IDC in a hormone receptor-positive cohort. In contrast, the prognosis of ILC was poorer than that of IDC in the hormone receptor-negative cohort. This study used the largest data of any study comparing IDC and ILC according to hormone receptor positivity; however, some HER2 data are missing. Furthermore, Xiao et al. [15, 16] and Chen et al. [16] used the SEER database to compare the prognosis of IDC and ILC in groups categorized using hormone receptor status. Both studies reported that ILC had a poorer prognosis than IDC in the hormone receptor-positive group. Moreover, Pestalozzi et al. [4] demonstrated that the prognosis of ER-positive ILC worsened 6 years after diagnosis, using data from 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group trials. Nevertheless, they also lacked information regarding HER2 expression.
However, as HER2 is an important prognostic factor in breast cancer, HER2 status should also be considered. Accordingly, Lim et al. [17] used the Korean Breast Cancer Registry to examine the survival of IDC and ILC for each subtype. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the prognosis of IDC and ILC according to the subtype; specifically, they concluded that IDC and ILC had similar prognoses for each subtype. Notably, this study did not adjust for clinicopathological differences between ILC and IDC, such as tumor size. Engstrøm et al. [18] concluded that luminal ILC with histopathological grade 2 had a poorer prognosis than luminal IDC with histopathological grade 2, even after adjusting for age and stage. Notably, these findings are consistent with those in the present study, although only grade 2 ILC was evaluated and the number of cases was small [18]. In the most recent report, Weiser et al. [19] found that the 5-year OS did not differ between the luminal ILC and IDC in multivariable Cox analysis using the National Cancer Database in the United States. The different results from our study might be because we compared the 10-year prognosis as luminal breast cancer has an indolent course, whereas they compared the 5-year prognosis. Overall, to our knowledge, our study represents the largest data set followed over a long period that compares IDC and ILC with adjusted HR, HER2, and clinicopathological backgrounds. Consequently, we could conclude that the prognosis for luminal ILC was worse than that for luminal IDC, which resulted in a poorer prognosis for ILC, even in the overall cohort.
The reason for the worse prognosis in luminal ILC may arise from different genomic profiles. It has been reported that ILC has more ERBB2 and FOXA1 mutations than IDC [20], and they are associated with endocrine resistance [21]. Moreover, more than 50% of metastatic ILC have at least one mutation associated with endocrine therapy resistance, such as mutations in AKT1, ARID1A, ESR1, NF1, or PTEN, in addition to mutations in ERBB2 and FOXA1 [20, 21]. Recently, some clinical data have also suggested that there are differences in the association between endocrine therapy and histological subtypes, ILC and IDC. For example, Filho et al. [22] suggested that adjuvant letrozole is more beneficial than tamoxifen in patients with ILC. In addition, Strasser-Weippl et al. [23] reported that ILC had a better prognosis when treated with anastrozole than with exemestane, whereas no difference was found in IDC treatment. Therefore, differentiating endocrine therapy from IDC might be an innovative approach to extending the prognosis of ILC.
In this study, we investigated the efficacy of CT for luminal ILC in patients with pT2N0M0 or pT1-2N1M0 disease. CT improves the prognosis of luminal ILC only in pT1-2N1M0 patients. Although there are many reports that CT does not improve the prognosis of ILC due to the high positivity of hormone receptors, there are few reports regarding the efficacy of CT on luminal ILC. For example, Marmur et al. [24] examined the efficacy of CT in stage I/II luminal ILC using data from the California Cancer Registry. They concluded that adjuvant CT was not associated with improved OS in patients with stage I/II luminal ILC. However, they did not mention lymph node metastasis, and it is difficult to assess the difference in results between our study and their studies. Nonneville et al. [25] also evaluated whether perioperative CT improved the prognosis of luminal ILC. They compared the prognosis of DFS and OS between endocrine therapy alone and endocrine therapy with CT and showed that CT improved the prognosis. Additionally, their subgroup analysis showed that CT did not significantly improve the prognosis in low-risk patients based on their original scoring system. However, high-risk patients could derive significant benefits from CT. Their findings and ours are similar because CT is effective in more advanced cases. However, our analysis was limited due to the small number of cases, and we could not draw definitive conclusions. Trapani et al. recently conducted a meta-analysis of eight retrospective studies on ILC, including all subtypes, and reported that CT does not contribute to an improvement in OS [26]. It is necessary to conduct similar large-scale studies for each subtype. Recently, the use of Oncotype Dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, California), which provides the recurrence score (RS) and chemosensitivity in luminal breast cancer, is becoming more widespread. However, the utility of Oncotype Dx in ILC remains controversial [27]. For example, it has been reported that histological grade affects RS and that ILC rarely shows high RS [19, 28]. Kizy et al. [29] reported that adjuvant CT did not improve the prognosis of ILC in the intermediate and high RS groups. In contrast, Weiser et al. [19] found that the high RS group in ILC, particularly those with N1, obtained a longer prognosis by performing CT. Our findings are consistent with their results because the N1 group benefitted more from CT. As more data accumulate on the use of OncotypeDx for ILC, the indications for CT for ILC might become clearer.
Our study had some limitations. First, central review of the samples was not performed in the NCD. There are studies that report that approximately 60% of tumors diagnosed as ILC by local pathology are confirmed to be ILC by central pathology [30, 31]. Considering the challenges of pathological diagnosis in ILC, central review of the samples may be necessary. Second, NCD lacked information regarding Ki-67; therefore, we could not classify the luminal subtypes, luminal A and B. Luminal B usually has a poorer prognosis than A; however, we could not compare the prognosis between the ILC and IDC in the luminal A and B groups separately. Third, information about the histological grade was lacking in the NCD. The histological grade is strongly correlated with the prognosis of breast cancer [32]. ILC has a higher proportion of low to intermediate histological grade compared to IDC [33]. Therefore, differences in the prognosis of ILC and IDC may be more significant than the results of this study when adjusting for histological grade as a variable. Fourth, NCD lacked information regarding histological variants in ILC, such as classical, solid, alveolar, mixed non-classical, and trabecular variants. Although it has been shown that solid and mixed non-classical variants are more closely related to poor prognosis [3], how these variants affect prognostic comparison by subtypes is unclear. Furthermore, classical ILC is often the luminal type, and it has been reported to exhibit variable response to CT [26]. However, this study did not investigate how these subtypes influence the effectiveness of CT.
Lastly, the lack of data on activities of daily living, such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, might have affected the results [34]. Notably, the prognostic comparison between the ET + CT and ET-only groups at pT1-2N1 showed a significant difference in OS compared with DFS. This might be because the ET-only group included more patients who could not receive CT due to comorbidities or poor performance status. Finally, it is necessary to accumulate data because the number of patients was small in the luminal HER2, HER, and TN groups. Therefore, the study of ILC requires continuous effort and the accumulation of data at multiple institutions.
Conclusion
Luminal ILC had a poorer prognosis than luminal IDC, which contributed to the worse prognosis of ILC than that of IDC. Different therapeutic approaches from luminal IDC are essential for a better prognosis of luminal ILC.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- ILC:
-
Invasive lobular carcinoma
- IDC:
-
Invasive ductal carcinoma
- CT:
-
Chemotherapy
- DFS:
-
Disease-free survival
- OS:
-
Overall survival
- HER2:
-
Luminal human epidermal growth factor 2
- JBCR:
-
Japanese Breast Cancer Registry
- NCD:
-
National Clinical Database
- HR:
-
Hormone receptor
- IHC:
-
Immunohistochemistry
- ER:
-
Estrogen receptor
- PR:
-
Progesterone receptor
- TN:
-
Triple-negative
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- ET:
-
Endocrine therapy
- SEER:
-
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
- RS:
-
Recurrence score
References
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 23:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.111
Van Baelen K, Geukens T, Maetens M et al (2022) Current and future diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Ann Oncol 33:769–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.05.006
Mouabbi JA, Hassan A, Lim B, Hortobagyi GN, Tripathy D, Layman RM (2022) Invasive lobular carcinoma: an understudied emergent subtype of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 193:253–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06572-w
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 26:3006–3014. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9336
Adachi Y, Ishiguro J, Kotani H et al (2016) Comparison of clinical outcomes between luminal invasive ductal carcinoma and luminal invasive lobular carcinoma. BMC Cancer 16:248. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2275-4
Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8418–8423. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0932692100
Iorfida M, Maiorano E, Orvieto E et al (2012) Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2002-z
Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L et al (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 13:2329–2334. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1109
Kubo M, Kumamaru H, Isozumi U et al (2020) Annual report of the japanese breast Cancer Society registry for 2016. Breast Cancer 27:511–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01081-4
Hayashi N, Kumamaru H, Isozumi U et al (2020) Annual report of the japanese breast Cancer Registry for 2017. Breast Cancer 27:803–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01139-3
Miyata H, Gotoh M, Hashimoto H et al (2014) Challenges and prospects of a clinical database linked to the board certification system. Surg Today 44:1991–1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-013-0802-3
Greene (2003) AJCC cancer staging manual. Springer, New York
Organization WH (2003) Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Yang C, Lei C, Zhang Y et al (2020) Comparison of overall survival between invasive lobular breast carcinoma and invasive ductal breast carcinoma: a propensity score matching study based on SEER Database. Front Oncol 10:590643. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.590643
Xiao Y, Ma D, Ruan M et al (2017) Mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma has distinct clinical features and predicts worse prognosis when stratified by estrogen receptor status. Sci Rep 7:10380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10789-x
Chen Z, Yang J, Li S et al (2017) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a special histological type compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. PLoS ONE 12:e0182397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182397
Lim ST, Yu JH, Park HK, Moon BI, Ko BK, Suh YJ (2014) A comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast according to molecular subtype in a korean population. World J Surg Oncol 12:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-56
Engstrom MJ, Opdahl S, Vatten LJ, Haugen OA, Bofin AM (2015) Invasive lobular breast cancer: the prognostic impact of histopathological grade, E-cadherin and molecular subtypes. Histopathology 66:409–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12572
Weiser R, Polychronopoulou E, Hatch SS et al (2022) Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma and use of the 21-gene recurrence score: a National Cancer database analysis. Cancer 128:1738–1747. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34127
Richard F, Majjaj S, Venet D et al (2020) Characterization of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and genomic alterations in metastatic lobular breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 26:6254–6265. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2268
Hanker AB, Sudhan DR, Arteaga CL (2020) Overcoming endocrine resistance in breast Cancer. Cancer Cell 37:496–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.009
Metzger Filho O, Giobbie-Hurder A, Mallon E et al (2015) Relative effectiveness of Letrozole compared with tamoxifen for patients with lobular carcinoma in the BIG 1–98 trial. J Clin Oncol 33:2772–2779. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.60.8133
Strasser-Weippl K, Sudan G, Ramjeesingh R et al (2018) Outcomes in women with invasive ductal or invasive lobular early stage breast cancer treated with anastrozole or exemestane in CCTG (NCIC CTG) MA.27. Eur J Cancer 90:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.11.014
Marmor S, Hui JYC, Huang JL et al (2017) Relative effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive lobular compared with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 123:3015–3021. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30699
de Nonneville A, Jauffret C, Goncalves A et al (2019) Adjuvant chemotherapy in lobular carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathological score identifies high-risk patient with survival benefit. Breast Cancer Res Treat 175:379–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05160-9
Trapani D, Gandini S, Corti C et al (2021) Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with lobular breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature and metanalysis. Cancer Treat Rev 97:102205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102205
McCart Reed AE, Kalinowski L, Simpson PT, Lakhani SR (2021) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: the increasing importance of this special subtype. Breast Cancer Res 23:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-020-01384-6
Singh K, He X, Kalife ET, Ehdaivand S, Wang Y, Sung CJ (2018) Relationship of histologic grade and histologic subtype with oncotype dx recurrence score; retrospective review of 863 breast cancer oncotype dx results. Breast Cancer Res Treat 168:29–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4619-4
Kizy S, Huang JL, Marmor S, Tuttle TM, Hui JYC (2017) Impact of the 21-gene recurrence score on outcome in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:757–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4355-9
Metzger O, Cardoso F, Poncet C et al (2020) Clinical utility of MammaPrint testing in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: results from the MINDACT phase III trial. Eur J Cancer 138:S5–S6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(20)30542-6
Christgen M, Gluz O, Harbeck N et al (2020) Differential impact of prognostic parameters in hormone receptor-positive lobular breast cancer. Cancer 126:4847–4858. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33104
Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F et al (2010) Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res 12:207. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2607
Oesterreich S, Nasrazadani A, Zou J et al (2022) Clinicopathological features and outcomes comparing patients with invasive ductal and lobular breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 114:1511–1522. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac157
Wilson IB, Cleary PD (1995) Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 273:59–65
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the JBCS staff and the National Clinical Database Office staff for their support in this study. YA would like to thank Mitsuo Terada and Hiroji Iwata at Aichi Cancer Center for their support in the application of this research.
Funding
This work was supported by the Japanese Breast Cancer Society.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by YA, SA, HK, NK, YS, NN, HJ, SS and MT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by YA, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
HK reports received consultation fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corporation and EPS Corporation and speaker fees from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Johnson and Johnson KK. HK and NK are affiliated with the Department of Health Quality Assessment at the University of Tokyo, a social collaboration department supported by the National Clinical Database, Johnson and Johnson K.K., Nipro Corporation, and Intuitive Surgical Sàrl. NN received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and MSD; and research funding from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Eisai, Mochida and Novartis. SS received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Kyowa Kirin, MSD, Ono, Pfizer, Taiho and Takeda; and research funding from Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD and Taiho. MT reports received honoraria from Chugai, Takeda, Pfizer, Kyowa-Kirin, Taiho, Eisai, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and companies, MSD, Exact Science, Novartis, Shimadzu, Yakult, Nippon Kayaku, Devicore Medical Japan, and Sysmex; and research funding from Chugai, Takeda, Pfizer, Taiho, JBCRG assoc., KBCRN assoc., Eisai, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Shimadzu, Yakult, Nippon Kayaku, AFI technology, Luxonus, Shionogi, GL Science, and Sanwa Shurui. YA, SA, NK, YS, HJ, and MT have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Aichi Cancer Center (5.8.2019/No.2019-1-042).
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Adachi, Y., Asaga, S., Kumamaru, H. et al. Analysis of prognosis in different subtypes of invasive lobular carcinoma using the Japanese National Cancer Database-Breast Cancer Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 201, 397–408 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07022-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07022-x