Rita A Mukhtar1, Gregor Krings2, Yunn-Yi Chen2, Matina E Mamounas3, Kelly Fahrner-Scott3, Jasmine Wong3, Michael Alvarado3, Cheryl Ewing3, Laura J Esserman3, Hope Rugo4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 1825 4th St, 3rd Floor, Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. rita.mukhtar@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 1825 4th St, 3rd Floor, Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 4. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Mitotic count; Pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma
Authors: Sibylle Loibl; Cristina Volz; Christine Mau; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Serban D Costa; Holger Eidtmann; Peter A Fasching; Bernd Gerber; Claus Hanusch; Christian Jackisch; Sherko Kümmel; Jens Huober; Carsten Denkert; Jörn Hilfrich; Gottfried E Konecny; Werner Fett; Elmar Stickeler; Nadia Harbeck; Keyur M Mehta; Valentina Nekljudova; Gunter von Minckwitz; Michael Untch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Emad A Rakha; Carolien H M van Deurzen; E Claire Paish; R Douglas Macmillan; Ian O Ellis; Andrew H S Lee Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Khalid Al-Baimani; Amy Bazzarelli; Mark Clemons; Susan J Robertson; Christina Addison; Angel Arnaout Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Esther H Lips; Rita A Mukhtar; Christina Yau; Jorma J de Ronde; Chad Livasy; Lisa A Carey; Claudette E Loo; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken-Peeters; Gabe S Sonke; Donald A Berry; Laura J Van't Veer; Laura J Esserman; Jelle Wesseling; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-09-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Morcos L Wanis; Jennifer A Wong; Samuel Rodriguez; Jasmine M Wong; Brice Jabo; Arjun Ashok; Sharon S J Lum; Naveenraj L Solomon; Mark E Reeves; Carlos A Garberoglio; Maheswari Senthil Journal: Am Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Roland Gregor Stein; Daniel Wollschläger; Rolf Kreienberg; Wolfgang Janni; Manfred Wischnewsky; Joachim Diessner; Tanja Stüber; Catharina Bartmann; Mathias Krockenberger; Jörg Wischhusen; Achim Wöckel; Maria Blettner; Lukas Schwentner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 4.430