Mitotic score and pleomorphic histology in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: impact on disease-free survival.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Breast Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Carcinoma, Lobular
/ drug therapy
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Middle Aged
Mitotic Index
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Prognosis
Receptor, ErbB-2
/ metabolism
Receptors, Estrogen
/ metabolism
Receptors, Progesterone
/ metabolism
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Breast cancer
Mitotic count
Pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma
Journal
Breast cancer research and treatment
ISSN: 1573-7217
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res Treat
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8111104
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
16
01
2020
accepted:
18
03
2020
pubmed:
3
4
2020
medline:
9
1
2021
entrez:
3
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) has long been thought to have worse outcomes than classic ILC and is therefore often treated with chemotherapy. However, recent data question the utility of the pleomorphic designation, as the poor outcomes seen may be related to other associated high-risk features. Importantly, mitotic count may better define a subset of ILC with high risk of recurrence. We sought to determine the impact of pleomorphic histology versus mitotic count on disease-free survival (DFS) in pure ILC. Additionally, we evaluated whether pleomorphic histology was associated with receipt of chemotherapy when adjusting for other factors. We analyzed a cohort of 475 patients with stage I-III pure ILC. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression for multivariate analyses. Pleomorphic histology was confirmed by central pathology review. In a multivariate model, pleomorphic histology was not associated with reduced DFS. Only mitotic score, receptor subtype, and pathologic stage were independently and significantly associated with DFS. Patients with pleomorphic ILC were significantly more likely to receive chemotherapy than patients with classic ILC (adjusted odds ratio 2.96, p = 0.026). The pleomorphic designation in ILC does not have clinical utility and should not be used to determine therapy. Rather, mitotic count identified clear prognostic groups in this cohort of pure ILC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32240457
doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05606-5
pii: 10.1007/s10549-020-05606-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
Receptors, Estrogen
0
Receptors, Progesterone
0
ERBB2 protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23-29Références
Felts JL, Zhu J, Han B, Smith SJ, Truica CI (2017) An analysis of oncotype DX recurrence scores and clinicopathologic characteristics in invasive lobular breast cancer. Breast J. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12751
doi: 10.1111/tbj.12751
pubmed: 28233921
Wenzel J, Zeisig R, Haider W, Habedank S, Fichtner I (2010) Inhibition of pulmonary metastasis in a human MT3 breast cancer xenograft model by dual liposomes preventing intravasal fibrin clot formation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0448-4
doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0448-4
pubmed: 19548083
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, Investigators IST (2012) Lobular histology and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2233-z
doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2233-z
pubmed: 22961065
pmcid: 5702179
Loibl S, Volz C, Mau C, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, Gerber B, Hanusch C, Jackisch C, Kummel S, Huober J, Denkert C, Hilfrich J, Konecny GE, Fett W, Stickeler E, Harbeck N, Mehta KM, Nekljudova V, von Minckwitz G, Untch M (2014) Response and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 1,051 patients with infiltrating lobular breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(1):153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2861-6
doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-2861-6
pubmed: 24504379
Stein RG, Wollschlager D, Kreienberg R, Janni W, Wischnewsky M, Diessner J, Stuber T, Bartmann C, Krockenberger M, Wischhusen J, Wockel A, Blettner M, Schwentner L, Group BS (2016) The impact of breast cancer biological subtyping on tumor size assessment by ultrasound and mammography—a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 6543 primary breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 16:459. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2426-7
doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2426-7
pubmed: 27411945
pmcid: 4943017
Wanis ML, Wong JA, Rodriguez S, Wong JM, Jabo B, Ashok A, Lum SS, Solomon NL, Reeves ME, Garberoglio CA, Senthil M (2013) Rate of re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for invasive lobular carcinoma. Am Surg 79(10):1119–1122
pubmed: 24160812
Weidner N, Semple JP (1992) Pleomorphic variant of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol 23(10):1167–1171
doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(92)90035-2
Al-Baimani K, Bazzarelli A, Clemons M, Robertson SJ, Addison C, Arnaout A (2015) Invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: pathologic, clinical, and therapeutic considerations. Clin Breast Cancer 15(6):421–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2015.06.010
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.06.010
pubmed: 26209026
Middleton LP, Palacios DM, Bryant BR, Krebs P, Otis CN, Merino MJ (2000) Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: morphology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 24(12):1650–1656
doi: 10.1097/00000478-200012000-00009
Narendra S, Jenkins SM, Khoor A, Nassar A (2015) Clinical outcome in pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: a case-control study with comparison to classic invasive lobular carcinoma. Ann Diagn Pathol 19(2):64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2015.01.005
doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2015.01.005
pubmed: 25682191
pmcid: 4366360
Rakha EA, van Deurzen CH, Paish EC, Macmillan RD, Ellis IO, Lee AH (2013) Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: is it a prognostically significant pathological subtype independent of histological grade? Mod Pathol 26(4):496–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2012.197
doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.197
pubmed: 23238630
Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19(5):403–410
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x
McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, Statistics Subcommittee of the NCIEWGoCD (2005) REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer 93(4):387–391. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678
pubmed: 16106245
pmcid: 2361579
Lakhani SR, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ (2012) WHO classification of tumours of the breast, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, Hicks DG, Lester S, Love R, Mangu PB, McShane L, Miller K, Osborne CK, Paik S, Perlmutter J, Rhodes A, Sasano H, Schwartz JN, Sweep FC, Taube S, Torlakovic EE, Valenstein P, Viale G, Visscher D, Wheeler T, Williams RB, Wittliff JL, Wolff AC, American Society of Clinical O, College of American P (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(7):e48–72. https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165-134.7.e48
doi: 10.1043/1543-2165-134.7.e48
pubmed: 20586616
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, Allred DC, Bartlett JM, Bilous M, Fitzgibbons P, Hanna W, Jenkins RB, Mangu PB, Paik S, Perez EA, Press MF, Spears PA, Vance GH, Viale G, Hayes DF, American Society of Clinical O, College of American P (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984
Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Page DL, Lee D, Duffy SW (1982) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology 6(2):149–161
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1982.tb02712.x
Abdelkader A, Jorns JM (2018) Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: a controversially aggressive variant of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Int J Surg Pathol 26(5):434–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066896917744878
doi: 10.1177/1066896917744878
pubmed: 29198145
Reis-Filho JS, Simpson PT, Jones C, Steele D, Mackay A, Iravani M, Fenwick K, Valgeirsson H, Lambros M, Ashworth A, Palacios J, Schmitt F, Lakhani SR (2005) Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: role of comprehensive molecular pathology in characterization of an entity. J Pathol 207(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1806
doi: 10.1002/path.1806
pubmed: 15957152
Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Lambros MB, Jones C, Steele D, Mackay A, Iravani M, Fenwick K, Dexter T, Jones A, Reid L, Da Silva L, Shin SJ, Hardisson D, Ashworth A, Schmitt FC, Palacios J, Lakhani SR (2008) Molecular profiling pleomorphic lobular carcinomas of the breast: evidence for a common molecular genetic pathway with classic lobular carcinomas. J Pathol 215(3):231–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2358
doi: 10.1002/path.2358
pubmed: 18473330
Zhu S, Ward BM, Yu J, Matthew-Onabanjo AN, Janusis J, Hsieh CC, Tomaszewicz K, Hutchinson L, Zhu LJ, Kandil D, Shaw LM (2018) IRS2 mutations linked to invasion in pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma. JCI Insight. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.97398
doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.97398
pubmed: 30568040
pmcid: 6338311
Eusebi V, Magalhaes F, Azzopardi JG (1992) Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: an aggressive tumor showing apocrine differentiation. Hum Pathol 23(6):655–662
doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(92)90321-S
Buchanan CL, Flynn LW, Murray MP, Darvishian F, Cranor ML, Fey JV, King TA, Tan LK, Sclafani LM (2008) Is pleomorphic lobular carcinoma really a distinct clinical entity? J Surg Oncol 98(5):314–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21121
doi: 10.1002/jso.21121
pubmed: 18668643
Ohashi R, Matsubara M, Watarai Y, Yanagihara K, Yamashita K, Tsuchiya SI, Takei H, Naito Z (2017) Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: a comparison of cytopathological features with other lobular carcinoma variants. Cytopathology 28(2):122–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.12362
doi: 10.1111/cyt.12362
pubmed: 27489086
Yang LP, Sun HF, Zhao Y, Chen MT, Zhang N, Jin W (2017) Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes in pleomorphic lobular breast carcinoma of the breast: a SEER population-based study. Cancer Med 6(12):2867–2875. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1244
doi: 10.1002/cam4.1244
pubmed: 29131529
pmcid: 5727339
Groenendijk FH, Jager A, Cardoso F, van Deurzen CHM (2018) A nationwide registry-based cohort study of the MammaPrint genomic risk classifier in invasive breast cancer. Breast 38:125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.12.015
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.12.015
pubmed: 29310037