Yu Zhang1, Xiulan Luo1, Min Chen1, Libo Yang1,2, Ting Lei1, Tianjie Pu1, Bing Wei1, Hong Bu1,2, Zhang Zhang3. 1. Department of Pathology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Guoxuexiang 37, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. 2. Laboratory of Pathology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 3. Department of Pathology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Guoxuexiang 37, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. zhangzhang714@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinicopathologic features and prognosis of pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (P-ILC) and classic ILC (C-ILC) according to the biomarker profile. METHODS: A total of 667 C-ILCs and 133 P-ILCs between 2011 and 2021 were included. Clinicopathologic features and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) status were evaluated. P-ILCs were divided into subtypes based on ER/PR and HER2 expression. The overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients were compared among matched P-ILCs, C-ILCs, and invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs) with biomarker subtypes. RESULTS: Compared to C-ILCs, P-ILCs had greater tumor sizes and stages, fewer ER-positive, more HER2-positive, triple negative (TN), and Ki-67 > 20% tumors (P < 0.05). P-ILCs were subdivided into ER+ (63.1%), HER2+ (21.1%) and TN (15.8%). ER+ P-ILCs were mainly showed trabecular and solid growth patterns. Apocrine and solid features were more strongly associated with HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. The prognosis of each biomarker group (ER+, HER2+ and TN) differed by subtype. The P-ILC biomarker subtypes had worse prognosis than the same subtypes in the IDC group, while there was no difference between the P-ILC and the C-ILC counterparts. Solid variants of P-ILC had the worst prognosis. Bone was the most common metastatic site in ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs. HER2+ P-ILCs tended to metastasize to the brain and liver. DFS of HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs were worse than that of ER+ P-ILCs. Lacking lobular carcinoma in situ and sTILs ≤ 10% were associated with worse survival of ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. For HER2+ P-ILCs, Ki-67 > 20% and sTILs ≤ 10% were significant factors for lower DFS. CONCLUSION: P-ILCs is an aggressive subtype of ILCs. Analyzing the prognostic factors of P-ILCs with heterogeneous morphological and biomarker characteristics is helpful for creating an individualized treatment.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinicopathologic features and prognosis of pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (P-ILC) and classic ILC (C-ILC) according to the biomarker profile. METHODS: A total of 667 C-ILCs and 133 P-ILCs between 2011 and 2021 were included. Clinicopathologic features and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) status were evaluated. P-ILCs were divided into subtypes based on ER/PR and HER2 expression. The overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients were compared among matched P-ILCs, C-ILCs, and invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs) with biomarker subtypes. RESULTS: Compared to C-ILCs, P-ILCs had greater tumor sizes and stages, fewer ER-positive, more HER2-positive, triple negative (TN), and Ki-67 > 20% tumors (P < 0.05). P-ILCs were subdivided into ER+ (63.1%), HER2+ (21.1%) and TN (15.8%). ER+ P-ILCs were mainly showed trabecular and solid growth patterns. Apocrine and solid features were more strongly associated with HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. The prognosis of each biomarker group (ER+, HER2+ and TN) differed by subtype. The P-ILC biomarker subtypes had worse prognosis than the same subtypes in the IDC group, while there was no difference between the P-ILC and the C-ILC counterparts. Solid variants of P-ILC had the worst prognosis. Bone was the most common metastatic site in ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs. HER2+ P-ILCs tended to metastasize to the brain and liver. DFS of HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs were worse than that of ER+ P-ILCs. Lacking lobular carcinoma in situ and sTILs ≤ 10% were associated with worse survival of ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. For HER2+ P-ILCs, Ki-67 > 20% and sTILs ≤ 10% were significant factors for lower DFS. CONCLUSION: P-ILCs is an aggressive subtype of ILCs. Analyzing the prognostic factors of P-ILCs with heterogeneous morphological and biomarker characteristics is helpful for creating an individualized treatment.
Authors: Rita A Mukhtar; Gregor Krings; Yunn-Yi Chen; Matina E Mamounas; Kelly Fahrner-Scott; Jasmine Wong; Michael Alvarado; Cheryl Ewing; Laura J Esserman; Hope Rugo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: José Palacios; David Sarrió; María C García-Macias; Bonita Bryant; Mark E Sobel; María J Merino Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Giuseppe Viale; Nicole Rotmensz; Patrick Maisonneuve; Enrico Orvieto; Eugenio Maiorano; Viviana Galimberti; Alberto Luini; Marco Colleoni; Aron Goldhirsch; Alan S Coates Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Emad A Rakha; Maysa E El-Sayed; Sindhu Menon; Andrew R Green; Andrew H S Lee; Ian O Ellis Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-10-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Emad A Rakha; Maysa E El-Sayed; Desmond G Powe; Andrew R Green; Hany Habashy; Matthew J Grainge; John F R Robertson; Roger Blamey; Julia Gee; Robert I Nicholson; Andrew H S Lee; Ian O Ellis Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jorge S Reis-Filho; Pete T Simpson; Chris Jones; Dawn Steele; Alan Mackay; Marjan Iravani; Kerry Fenwick; Haukur Valgeirsson; Maryou Lambros; Alan Ashworth; Jose Palacios; Fernando Schmitt; Sunil R Lakhani Journal: J Pathol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.996