The comparison between the two most common histological subtypes of breast cancer – invasive ductal and invasive lobular breast carcinoma. Original article

Article Sidebar

PDF


Published: Apr 7, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24292/01.OR.141220124
Keywords:
immunohistochemistry, invasive lobular carcinoma, invasive ductal carcinoma

Main Article Content

Marta Fudalej
1. Department of Oncological Propaedeutics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 2. Department of Oncology, National Medical Institute of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland
Aleksandra Sobiborowicz
Chair and Department of Experimental and Clinical Physiology, Laboratory of Centre for Preclinical Research, Medical University of Warsaw
Agata Mormul
Students’ Scientific Organization of Cancer Cell Biology, Department of Oncological Propaedeutics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw
Sylwia Jopek
1. Students’ Scientific Organization of Medical Law, Department of Health Economics and Medical Law, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 2. Department of Health Economics and Medical Law, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Agnieszka Borowiec
Department of Ophthalmology, The Voivodeship Hospital in Biała Podlaska, Biała Podlaska, Poland
Piotr Sikorski
Masovian Bródno District Hospital, Warsaw, Poland
Janusz Patera
Department of Pathomorphology, Military Institute of Health Services, Warsaw, Poland
Andrzej Deptała
1. Department of Oncological Propaedeutics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 2. Department of Oncology, National Medical Institute of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Warsaw, Poland
Anna Maria Badowska-Kozakiewicz
Department of Oncological Propaedeutics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Abstract

Introduction: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) occurs in 5–15% of all cases of breast cancer. In most studies, it is found to be more common among older patients, form larger tumours and present with ill-defined margins, in comparison to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).


Material and methods: Histological preparations were obtained from 651 patients suffering from breast cancer. Preparations stained with hematoxylin and eosin were used to identify tumour type and grading. Samples underwent a basic molecular profile evaluation encompassing ER (oestrogen receptor), PR (progesterone receptor) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression.


Results: 592 cases of IDC and 59 cases of ILC were detected. The median age was 60 in both groups. While there were no statistically significant differences between IDC and ILC in nodal status and tumour size for all age groups, IDC was more frequently diagnosed at higher grading (G3). G3 accounted for 32% of all IDC specimens compared to only 13% of ILC specimens. In both groups, the most prevalent combination of hormone receptors was ER+/PR+/HER2-. The differences in ER and PR expression were statistically significant; both were assessed as positive in most ILC cases and just over half of IDC. No HER2 amplification was noted in most cases in both cancer subtypes.


Conclusions: In our study, IDC and ILC showed no difference with respect to patients’ median age at the diagnosis and local disease advancement defined by TNM. ILC cases were hormone-dependent and HER2-negative more frequently than IDC. Grade 3 tumours accounted for a higher proportion of IDC cases. This was in line with several other clinicopathological analyses of breast cancer. However, there are also several papers indicating ILC’s association with favourable prognostic features, not only in terms of hormone receptors and HER2 expression but also tumour size and nodal involvement. This underlines the fact that clear differences between IDC and ILC prognosis still cannot be established.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Fudalej M, Sobiborowicz A, Mormul A, Jopek S, Borowiec A, Sikorski P, Patera J, Deptała A, Badowska-Kozakiewicz AM. The comparison between the two most common histological subtypes of breast cancer – invasive ductal and invasive lobular breast carcinoma. OncoReview [Internet]. 2024Apr.7 [cited 2024Jul.3];00. Available from: https://journalsmededu.pl/index.php/OncoReview/article/view/3063
Issue
Ahead of print
Section
CARDIO-ONCOLOGY
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright: © Medical Education sp. z o.o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)

References

1. Momenimovahed Z, Salehiniya H. Epidemiological characteristics of and risk factors for breast cancer in the world. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2019; 11: 151-64.
2. SEER. Cancer of the breast (female) – cancer stat facts.
3. Neagu AN, Whitham D, Seymour L et al. Proteomics-Based Identification of Dysregulated Proteins and Biomarker Discovery in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma, the Most Common Breast Cancer Subtype. Proteomes. 2023; 11(2): 13.
4. Mouabbi JA, Hassan A, Lim B et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: an understudied emergent subtype of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022; 193(2): 253-64.
5. Pramod N, Nigam A, Basree M et al. Comprehensive Review of Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Features of Invasive Lobular Cancer. Oncologist. 2021; 26(6): e943-53.
6. Wilson N, Ironside A, Diana A et al. Lobular Breast Cancer: A Review. Front Oncol. 2021; 10: 591399.
7. Batra H, Mouabbi JA, Ding Q et al. Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: A Comprehensive Review with Translational Insights. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(22): 5491.
8. Yu J, da Silva EM, La HS et al. Clinicopathologic and genomic features of lobular like invasive mammary carcinoma: is it a distinct entity? NPJ Breast Cancer. 2023; 9(1): 60.
9. McCart Reed AE, Kalinowski L, Simpson PT et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: the increasing importance of this special subtype. Breast Cancer Res. 2021; 23(1): 6.
10. Ciriello G, Gatza ML, Beck AH, Wilkerson MD et al.; TCGA Research Network; Perou CM. Comprehensive Molecular Portraits of Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Cell. 2015; 163(2): 506-19.
11. Ghorbian M, Ghorbian S. Usefulness of machine learning and deep learning approaches in screening and early detection of breast cancer. Heliyon. 2023; 9(12): e22427.
12. Thomas M, Kelly ED, Abraham J et al. Invasive lobular breast cancer: A review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, management, and future directions of early stage disease. Semin Oncol. 2019; 46(2): 121-32.
13. Zhao H. The prognosis of invasive ductal carcinoma, lobular carcinoma and mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma according to molecular subtypes of the breast. Breast Cancer. 2021; 28: 187-95.
14. Williams LA, Hoadley KA, Nichols HB et al. Differences in race, molecular and tumor characteristics among women diagnosed with invasive ductal and lobular breast carcinomas. Cancer Causes Control. 2019; 30(1): 31-9.
15. Zengel B, Yararbas U, Duran A et al. Comparison of the clinicopathological features of invasive ductal, invasive lobular, and mixed (invasive ductal + invasive lobular) carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer. 2015; 22(4): 374-81.
16. Danzinger S, Pöckl K, Kronawetter G et al. Axillary lymph node status and invasive lobular breast cancer : Analysis of the Clinical Tumor Register of the AGO Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2023; 135(17-18): 463-71.
17. Danzinger S, Hielscher N, Izsó M et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: clinicopathological features and subtypes. J Int Med Res. 2021; 49(6): 3000605211017039.
18. Lohani KR, Hoskin TL, Day CN et al. Lobular-Like Features and Outcomes of Mixed Invasive Ductolobular Breast Cancer (MIDLC): Insights from 54,403 Stage I-III MIDLC Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024; 31(2): 936-46.
19. Montagna E, Pirola S, Maisonneuve P et al. Lobular Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients With Gastrointestinal Involvement: Features and Outcomes. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018; 18: e401-5.
20. Van Baelen K, Van Cauwenberge J, Maetens M. Reporting on invasive lobular breast cancer in clinical trials: a systematic review. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2024; 10(1): 23.
21. Inoue M, Nakagomi H, Nakada H et al. Specific sites of metastases in invasive lobular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study of metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2017; 24(5): 667-72.
22. Timbres J, Moss C, Mera A et al. Survival Outcomes in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Compared to Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(12): 3036.
23. Yang C, Lei C, Zhang Y et al. 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. 2020; 10: 590643.
24. Göker M, Denys H, Hendrix A, De Wever O et al. Histologic tumor type as a determinant of survival in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, pT1-3 invasive ductal and lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2023; 25(1): 146.
25. Dayan D, Lukac S, Rack B et al. Effect of histological breast cancer subtypes invasive lobular versus non special type on survival in early intermediate-to-high-risk breast carcinoma: results from the SUCCESS trials. Breast Cancer Res. 2023; 25(1): 153.
26. Christgen M, Gluz O, Harbeck N et al.; West German Study Group PlanB Investigators. Differential impact of prognostic parameters in hormone receptor-positive lobular breast cancer. Cancer. 2020; 126(22): 4847-58.
27. Yoon TI, Jeong J, Lee S et al. Survival Outcomes in Premenopausal Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(11): e2342270.
28. Luo Y, Ma A, Huang S et al. Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Has Worse Outcome Compared with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma in Stage IV Breast Cancer with Bone-Only Metastasis. Breast Care (Basel). 2022; 17(3): 296-305.
29. Metzger-Filho O, Ferreira AR, Jeselsohn R et al. Mixed Invasive Ductal and Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Prognosis and the Importance of Histologic Grade. Oncologist. 2019; 24(7): e441-9.
30. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG et al.; American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists. 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. 2013; 31(31): 3997-4013.
31. Flores-Díaz D, Arce C, Flores-Luna L et al. Impact of invasive lobular carcinoma on long-term outcomes in Mexican breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 176(1): 243-9.
32. Al Nemer A. Breast biomarkers profile of invasive lobular carcinoma in a cohort of arab women shows no significant differences from carcinoma of no special type. Afr Health Sci. 2022; 22(4): 10-5.
33. Corona SP, Bortul M, Scomersi S et al. Management of the axilla in breast cancer: outcome analysis in a series of ductal versus lobular invasive cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020; 180(3): 735-45.
34. Duraker N, Hot S, Akan A et al. A Comparison of the Clinicopathological Features, Metastasis Sites and Survival Outcomes of Invasive Lobular, Invasive Ductal and Mixed Invasive Ductal and Lobular Breast Carcinoma. Eur J Breast Health. 2020; 16(1): 22-31.
35. Korhonen T, Kuukasjärvi T, Huhtala H et al. The impact of lobular and ductal breast cancer histology on the metastatic behavior and long term survival of breast cancer patients. Breast. 2013; 22(6): 1119-24.
36. Lee JH, Park S, Park HS et al. Clinicopathological features of infiltrating lobular carcinomas comparing with infiltrating ductal carcinomas: a case control study. World J Surg Oncol. 2010; 8: 34.
37. Moran MS, Yang Q, Haffty BG. The Yale University experience of early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) treated with breast conservation treatment (BCT): analysis of clinical-pathologic features, long-term outcomes, and molecular expression of COX-2, Bcl-2, and p53 as a function of histology. Breast J. 2009; 15(6): 571-8.
38. Singh D, Mandal A. The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in survival of non-metastatic breast carcinoma patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020; 184(3): 839-48.
39. Gao W, Zeng Y, Fei X et al. Axillary lymph node and non-sentinel lymph node metastasis among the ACOSOG Z0011 eligible breast cancer patients with invasive ductal, invasive lobular, or other histological special types: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020; 184: 193-202.
40. Brouckaert O, Laenen A, Smeets A et al.; MBC Leuven. Prognostic implications of lobular breast cancer histology: new insights from a single hospital cross-sectional study and SEER data. Breast. 2014; 23(4): 371-7.
41. Carvalho FM. Triple-negative breast cancer: from none to multiple therapeutic targets in two decades. Front Oncol. 2023; 13: 1244781.
42. Yu J, Dabbs DJ, Shuai Y et al. Classical-type invasive lobular carcinoma with HER2 overexpression: clinical, histologic, and hormone receptor characteristics. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011; 136(1): 88-97.
43. Cao AY , Huang L, Wu J et al. Tumor characteristics and the clinical outcome of invasive lobular carcinoma compared to infiltrating ductal carcinoma in a Chinese population. World J Surg Oncol. 2012; 10: 152.
44. O'Connor DJ, Davey MG, Barkley LR et al. Differences in sensitivity to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast and implications on surgery-A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2022; 61: 1-10.
45. Huober J, van Mackelenbergh M, Schneeweiss A et al. Identifying breast cancer patients at risk of relapse despite pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2023; 9(1): 23.