PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: A retrospective analysis on 1407 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 243 invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) was performed in order to compare the histological features, the immunohistochemical characteristics, the surgical treatment and the clinical outcome in the two groups. RESULTS: ILC seems to be more likely multifocal, estrogen receptor positive, HER-2 negative and to have a lower proliferative index compared to IDC. ILC, when treated with conservative surgery, required more frequently re-excision and/or mastectomy because of positive resection margins. No difference was observed in terms of 5-year disease free survival and local relapse free survival between the two groups, in the whole series and in the subgroup of patients treated with breast-conserving treatment. CONCLUSION: ILC can be safely treated with conservative surgery but a more accurate preoperative evaluation of tumor size and multifocality could be advocated, in order to reduce the re-excision rate.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: A retrospective analysis on 1407 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 243 invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) was performed in order to compare the histological features, the immunohistochemical characteristics, the surgical treatment and the clinical outcome in the two groups. RESULTS: ILC seems to be more likely multifocal, estrogen receptor positive, HER-2 negative and to have a lower proliferative index compared to IDC. ILC, when treated with conservative surgery, required more frequently re-excision and/or mastectomy because of positive resection margins. No difference was observed in terms of 5-year disease free survival and local relapse free survival between the two groups, in the whole series and in the subgroup of patients treated with breast-conserving treatment. CONCLUSION: ILC can be safely treated with conservative surgery but a more accurate preoperative evaluation of tumor size and multifocality could be advocated, in order to reduce the re-excision rate.
Authors: Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: A García-Fernández; C Chabrera; M García-Font; M Fraile; I Barco; S González; L Cirera; J M Lain; C González; E Veloso; L Codina; M Piqueras; A Pessarrodona; N Gimenez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Anita Mamtani; Emily C Zabor; Laura H Rosenberger; Michelle Stempel; Mary L Gemignani; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Matthew N Mills; Nicholas W Russo; Matthew Fahey; Ronica H Nanda; Sunny Raiker; Jessica Jastrzebski; Lisa L Stout; Jason P Wilson; Taghrid A Altoos; Kathleen G Allen; Peter W Blumencranz; Roberto Diaz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-10-04
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sabine Danzinger; Nora Hielscher; Miriam Izsó; Johanna Metzler; Carmen Trinkl; Christian Pfeifer; Kristina Tendl-Schulz; Christian F Singer Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: Gisela Lg Menezes; Maurice Aaj van den Bosch; Emily L Postma; Mary-Ann El Sharouni; Helena M Verkooijen; Paul J van Diest; Ruud M Pijnappel Journal: Springerplus Date: 2013-11-20