Renaud Sabatier1, Laura Sabiani2, Christophe Zemmour3, Sébastien Taix4, Elisabeth Chereau5, Anthony Gonçalves1, Aurélie Jalaguier-Coudray6, Emmanuelle Charafe-Jauffret7, Michel Resbeut8, Jean-Marc Extra9, Patrice Viens1, Agnès Tallet8. 1. Department of Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France; Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, INSERM U1068, CNRS U7258, Marseille, France; Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France. 2. Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France; Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. Electronic address: laurasabiani@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Clinical Research and Innovation, Methodology and Biostatistics Unit, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 4. Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France; Department of Biopathology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 6. Department of Radiology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 7. Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, INSERM U1068, CNRS U7258, Marseille, France; Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France; Department of Biopathology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 8. Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 9. Department of Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component (IDCPIC) represents almost 5% of breast cancers. Nevertheless few data exist concerning their characteristics and prognostic behaviour. Our objective was to describe IDCPIC's clinicopathological and prognostic features and compare them to that of invasive ductal carcinoma without predominant intraductal component (IDC). METHODS: Retrospective single centre study including all the localized invasive ductal carcinoma listed in our institutional database. Clinical, radiological and pathological criteria were collected as well as disease-free survival (DFS) data. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2008, 4109 invasive ductal breast cancers treated were included. Out of them 192 (4.7%) were IDCPIC. Most of IDCPIC (63%) were discovered by radiological screening whereas IDC suspicion was more often clinical (82.7% vs 49.5%, p < 0.001). Pathological lymph node involvement was less frequent in IDCPIC (35.8 vs 44.3%, p = 0.04). Invasive tumour median size was 2-fold smaller in IDCPIC (10 mm vs 20 mm, p<0.001). Hormone receptors expression was similar between both groups whereas HER2 overexpression was more frequent in IDCPIC (32% vs 14.3%, p<0.001). Mastectomy was more frequently performed for IDCPIC (67.7% vs 30.3%, p < 0.001) whereas chemotherapy and radiation therapy were less frequent (55.5% vs 68%, and 82.8% vs 95.5%, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). After matching for discriminant clinicopathological features (tumour size, lymph node involvement, vascular invasion, HER2), DFS was similar in both groups (5-year DFS of 87.4% vs 84.4%, p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: IDCPIC and other IDC with invasive components showing similar clinicopathological features display a similar prognosis.
PURPOSE:Invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component (IDCPIC) represents almost 5% of breast cancers. Nevertheless few data exist concerning their characteristics and prognostic behaviour. Our objective was to describe IDCPIC's clinicopathological and prognostic features and compare them to that of invasive ductal carcinoma without predominant intraductal component (IDC). METHODS: Retrospective single centre study including all the localized invasive ductal carcinoma listed in our institutional database. Clinical, radiological and pathological criteria were collected as well as disease-free survival (DFS) data. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2008, 4109 invasive ductal breast cancers treated were included. Out of them 192 (4.7%) were IDCPIC. Most of IDCPIC (63%) were discovered by radiological screening whereas IDC suspicion was more often clinical (82.7% vs 49.5%, p < 0.001). Pathological lymph node involvement was less frequent in IDCPIC (35.8 vs 44.3%, p = 0.04). Invasive tumour median size was 2-fold smaller in IDCPIC (10 mm vs 20 mm, p<0.001). Hormone receptors expression was similar between both groups whereas HER2 overexpression was more frequent in IDCPIC (32% vs 14.3%, p<0.001). Mastectomy was more frequently performed for IDCPIC (67.7% vs 30.3%, p < 0.001) whereas chemotherapy and radiation therapy were less frequent (55.5% vs 68%, and 82.8% vs 95.5%, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). After matching for discriminant clinicopathological features (tumour size, lymph node involvement, vascular invasion, HER2), DFS was similar in both groups (5-year DFS of 87.4% vs 84.4%, p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: IDCPIC and other IDC with invasive components showing similar clinicopathological features display a similar prognosis.