Metastatic profiles and survival differences between infiltrating ductal carcinoma and infiltrating lobular carcinoma in invasive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In this study, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of metastatic profiles and survival outcomes in patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) and infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) treated at our university hospital center.

METHODS

We collected and analyzed data from all patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at our center between January 1, 2007, and 31 December 2014. We specifically compared three subgroups: patients with IDC, patients with ILC and patients with mixed carcinoma, which is a combination of IDC and ILC.

RESULTS

Among the 1963 patients treated for invasive breast cancer in our center during the study period, 1435 had IDC, 466 had ILC, and 59 had mixed carcinoma. The incidence of patients with at least one positive axillary lymph node differed significantly: 40 % for IDC, 36 % for ILC, and 45 % for mixed carcinoma (p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the mean number of positive nodes (p = 0.1633). The occurrence of distant metastases was lower in patients with ILC (p = 0.04), particularly in the case of brain metastases (p = 0.01), although there was no difference in bone or visceral metastatic sites. Patients with ILC exhibited a longer mean time to metastasis from the initial diagnosis of invasive breast carcinoma. Overall survival (p = 0.0525) and survival without locoregional recurrence (p = 0.026) were significantly different. Specifically, the 5-year overall survival rates for IDC, ILC, and mixed carcinoma were approximately 95 %. Distance metastatic-free survival at 5 years was 85 % for IDC, 91 % for ILC, and 87 % for mixed carcinoma (p = 0.00506).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate variations in the distribution of distant metastatic sites among patients with IDC, ILC, and mixed carcinoma, as well as differences in survival outcomes. This study sheds light on the unique characteristics and clinical implications associated with these two distinct subtypes of invasive breast cancer.

Impact of disulfidptosis-associated clusters on breast cancer survival rates and guiding personalized treatment

Background

Breast cancer (BC) poses a serious threat to human health. Disulfidptosis is a recently discovered form of cell death associated with cancer prognosis and progression. However, the relationship between BC and disulfidptosis remains unclear.

Methods

We integrated single-cell sequencing and transcriptome sequencing in BC to assess the abundance and mutation status of disulfidptosis-associated genes (DAGs). Subsequently, we clustered the samples based on DAGs and constructed a prognostic model associated with disulfidptosis. Additionally, we performed pathway enrichment, immune response, and drug sensitivity analyses on the model. Finally, we validated the prognostic genes through Immunohistochemistry (IHC).

Results

The single-cell analysis identified 21 cell clusters and 8 cell types. By evaluating the abundance of DAGs in different cell types, we found specific expression of the disulfidoptosis core gene SLC7A11 in mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Through unsupervised clustering of DAGs, we identified two clusters. Utilizing differentially expressed genes from these clusters, we selected 7 genes (AFF4, SLC7A11, IGKC, IL6ST, LIMD2, MAT2B, and SCAND1) through Cox and Lasso regression to construct a prognostic model. External validation demonstrated good prognostic prediction of our model. BC patients were stratified into two groups based on riskscore, with the high-risk group corresponding to a worse prognosis. Immune response analysis revealed higher TMB and lower TIDE scores in the high-risk group, while the low-risk group exhibited higher CTLA4/PD-1 expression. This suggests that both groups may respond to immunotherapy, necessitating further research to elucidate potential mechanisms. Drug sensitivity analysis indicated that dasatinib, docetaxel, lapatinib, methotrexate, paclitaxel, and sunitinib may have better efficacy in the low-risk group. Finally, Immunohistochemistry (IHC) validated the expression of prognostic genes, demonstrating higher levels in tumor tissue compared to normal tissue.

Conclusion

Our study has developed an effective disulfidptosis-related prognostic prediction tool for BC and provides personalized guidance for the clinical management and immunotherapy selection of BC patients.

A Comparison of the Clinicopathological Features, Metastasis Sites and Survival Outcomes of Invasive Lobular, Invasive Ductal and Mixed Invasive Ductal and Lobular Breast Carcinoma

Objective

We compared the breast cancer patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDLC) in terms of clinicopathological and treatment features, metastatic patterns and long-term survival.

Materials and Methods

In a 10 years patient cohort, 3412 patients with unilateral breast carcinoma were enrolled in the study. Tumors were classified histologically according to criteria described by World Health Organization classification.

Results

The highest rate of T3 tumors were found in IDLC patients, the lowest in IDC patients, and the difference between groups was significant only in comparison of IDC vs IDLC. Axillary positivity rate was highest in IDLC, lowest in ILC; differences were significant in comparisons of IDLC vs ILC and IDLC vs IDC. There was no significant difference between the patient groups in terms of surgical treatment, mastectomy and breast conserving surgery. Rate of bone metastasis was highest in IDLC, lowest in IDC, with significant difference between IDLC and IDC. Locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) rate was 90.9% in ILC patients, 92.5% in IDC patients, 92.9% in IDLC patients, with no significant difference between the groups; in multivariate Cox analysis, histological type had no prognostic significance (p=0.599). Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rate was 66.2% in ILC patients, 66.7% in IDC patients, 57.1% in IDLC patients; in multivariate Cox analysis, histological type had no prognostic significance (p=0.392).

Conclusion

Although these results suggest that IDLC may have a worse prognosis than IDC and ILC, in multivariate analysis LRFS and DMFS were not significantly different among the histological type groups.

Long-Term Survival Differences Between T1-2 Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer and Corresponding Ductal Carcinoma After Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Propensity-Scored Matched Longitudinal Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The role of histology subtype on the prognosis of T1-2 breast cancer patients receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is not clear.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program was used to compare overall survival, second primary cancer-free survival (CFS), and local recurrence risk (LR) for patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), both receiving BCS.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 196,688 patients with T1-2 disease receiving BCS, including 12,906 with ILC and 183,782 with IDC. Patients with IDC showed higher unadjusted annual rates of BCS than ILC. Five- and 10-year estimated survival rates were, respectively, 92.06% and 86.14% in ILC, compared to 90.50% and 85.26% in IDC (P = .12). In multivariable Cox regression, ILC patients showed advantage over IDC in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93, P = .001), whereas no significant differences in CFS (HR = 1.03, P = .33) and LR (HR = 1.17, P = .06) were found, which were consistent with results from matched cohort. In subgroup analyses, patients with grade III ILC had poorer CFS (HR = 1.23, P = .009) and higher LR (HR = 1.59, P = .01) than IDC.

CONCLUSION

Histologic type is of prognostic importance in T1-2 patients receiving BCS, and surgeons should be cautious in performing BCS for individuals with grade III ILC.

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: A special histological type compared with invasive ductal carcinoma

The clinical outcomes and therapeutic strategies for infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) and infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) are not uniform. The primary objectives of this study were to identify the differences in the clinical characteristics and prognoses between ILC and IDC, and identify the high-risk population based on the hormone receptor status and metastasis sites. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database was searched and patients diagnosed with ILC or IDC from 1990 to 2013 were identified. In total,796,335 patients were analyzed, including 85,048 withILC (10.7%) and 711,287 withIDC (89.3%). The ILC group was correlatedwith older age, larger tumor size, later stage, lower grade, metastasis disease(M1) disease, and greater counts ofpositive lymph nodesandestrogen-receptor-positive (ER)/progesterone receptor-positive (PR) positive nodes. The overall survival showed an early advantage for ILC but a worse outcome after 5 years. Regarding the disease-specific survival, the IDC cohort had advantages over the ILC group, both during the early years and long-term. In hormone status and metastasis site subgroup analyses, the ER+/PR+ subgroup had the best survival, while the ER+/PR- subgroup had the worst outcome, especially the ILC cohort. ILC and IDC had different metastasis patterns. The proportion of bone metastasis was higher in the ILC group (91.52%) than that in the IDC (76.04%), and the ILC group was more likely to have multiple metastasis sites. Survival analyses showed patients with ILC had a higher risk of liver metastasis (disease-specific survival[DSS]; P = 0.046), but had a better overall survival than the bone metastasis group (P<0.0001). We concluded that the long-term prognosis for ILC was poorer than that for IDC, and the ER+/PR- subgroup had the worst outcome. Therefore, the metastasis pattern and prognosis must be seriously evaluated, and a combination of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy should be considered.

Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: how special are they for systemic therapy decisions?

The WHO classification of breast tumors distinguishes, besides invasive breast cancer 'of no special type' (former invasive ductal carcinoma, representing 60-70% of all breast cancers), 30 special types, of which invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the most common (5-15%). We review the literature on (i) the specificity and heterogeneity of ILC biology as documented by various analytical techniques, including the results of molecular testing for risk of recurrence; (ii) the impact of lobular histology on prediction of prognosis and effect of systemic therapies in patients. Though it is generally admitted that ILC has a better prognosis than IDC, is endocrine responsive, and responds poorly to chemotherapy, currently available data do not unanimously support these assumptions. This review demonstrates some lack of specific data and a need for improving clinical research design to allow oncologists to make informed systemic therapy decisions in patients with ILC. Importantly, future studies should compare various endpoints in ILC breast cancer patients among the group of hormonosensitive breast cancer.

Invasive lobular carcinoma cell lines are characterized by unique estrogen-mediated gene expression patterns and altered tamoxifen response

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is a histologic subtype of breast cancer that is frequently associated with favorable outcomes, as approximately 90% of ILC express the estrogen receptor (ER). However, recent retrospective analyses suggest that patients with ILC receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy may not benefit as much as patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. On the basis of these observations, we characterized ER function and endocrine response in ILC models. The ER-positive ILC cell lines MDA MB 134VI (MM134) and SUM44PE were used to examine the ER-regulated transcriptome via gene expression microarray analyses and ER ChIP-Seq, and to examine response to endocrine therapy. In parallel, estrogen response was assessed in vivo in the patient-derived ILC xenograft HCI-013. We identified 915 genes that were uniquely E2 regulated in ILC cell lines versus other breast cancer cell lines, and a subset of these genes were also E2 regulated in vivo in HCI-013. MM134 cells were de novo tamoxifen resistant and were induced to grow by 4-hydroxytamoxifen, as well as other antiestrogens, as partial agonists. Growth was accompanied by agonist activity of tamoxifen on ER-mediated gene expression. Though tamoxifen induced cell growth, MM134 cells required fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-1 signaling to maintain viability and were sensitive to combined endocrine therapy and FGFR1 inhibition. Our observation that ER drives a unique program of gene expression in ILC cells correlates with the ability of tamoxifen to induce growth in these cells. Targeting growth factors using FGFR1 inhibitors may block survival pathways required by ILC and reverse tamoxifen resistance.

Prognostic implications of lobular breast cancer histology: new insights from a single hospital cross-sectional study and SEER data

BACKGROUND

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is generally believed to have an increased risk for late relapse compared to invasive ductal breast cancer (IDC). However, the study most often referred to is a chemotherapy trial that mainly included node positive patients. We hypothesize that nodal status may influence the hazard of relapse since time of diagnosis differently in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and ILC.

METHODS

Primary operable breast cancer patients from our institution diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 were studied. Multivariable analysis and subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether ILC carries a different prognosis compared to IDC. SEER data were used for external validation.

RESULTS

In lymph node negative patients, ILC carries a better prognosis regarding distant metastasis free interval (DMFI) (HR 3.242 (1.380-7.614), p = 0.0069) with a trend towards improved breast cancer specific survival (BCSS), over the entire study frame (UZ Leuven data). In lymph node positive patients, both DMFI (HR 0.466 (0.309-0.703), p = 0.0003) and BCSS (HR 0.441 (0.247-0.788), p = 0.0057) are significantly worse for ILC, especially after longer follow-up (>4-5 years) (UZ Leuven data). Similar results were found in the SEER cohort. Results remained identical when excluding screen detected cases (data not shown).

CONCLUSION

The prognostic impact of lobular histology not only depends on time since diagnosis but also on nodal status. The general believe that ILC have compromised late-term outcome compared to IDC seems untrue for the majority ( = node negative) of ILCs.

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: patient response to systemic endocrine therapy and hormone response in model systems

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast (ILC) represents 10-15% of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, affecting ∼30,000 women annually in the United States. However, ILC is critically understudied as a breast cancer subtype. Though the vast majority of ILC are estrogen receptor-positive and present with overall favorable biomarkers, ILC patients do not benefit from improved outcomes versus other breast cancer patients. Patient outcomes, in particular in response to endocrine therapies, are not well understood in ILC, due in large part to the lack of prospective identification in large clinical trials. Further, there is a lack of laboratory models to study cell signaling, hormone response, and endocrine resistance in ILC. In this review, we provide an overview of clinicopathological features of ILC tumors, discuss issues with clinical management, and highlight the disconnect between ILC biomarkers and patient outcomes. We review currently available data on ILC patient outcomes, with a focus on response to endocrine therapy. Additionally, we describe currently available laboratory models for understanding hormone response in ILC cells, and review current data on these model systems. The promise for new insight into ILC, based on extensive representation of the disease in recent large scale genomic studies, is also discussed. Increasing understanding of endocrine response in ILC represents a critical area for future research to improve patient outcomes for this understudied breast cancer subtype.

Lobular breast cancer: same survival and local control compared with ductal cancer, but should both be treated the same way? analysis of an institutional database over a 10-year period

BACKGROUND

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is believed to be more often multicentric and bilateral compared with invasive ductal cancer (IDC), leading clinicians to pursue a more aggressive local and contralateral approach.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a consecutive cohort of breast cancer patients operated at one institution from January 2000 to January 2010 was performed. Median follow-up was 4 years.

RESULTS

There were 171 ILC (14.5%) and 1,011 IDC patients in the study period. Median age (63 vs. 65 years) and tumor diameter (1.7 cm) were similar in the two groups. Diagnoses of ILC were more frequent in the second half of the study period (55/465 vs. 116/662, p<0.01). Multicentricity was reported in 108/1,011 (10.6%) IDC and in 31/171 (18.1%) ILC patients (p<0.01). A positive margin of resection at initial surgery was documented in 71/1,011 (7%) IDC and in 21/171 (12.3%) ILC patients (p<0.001). Although the rate of mastectomy decreased over time in both groups, this was more pronounced for ILC patients (p<0.001). Locoregional control, contralateral cancer, overall survival, disease-free survival, and survival according to diameter, nodal status, and type of surgical intervention did not differ between IDC and ILC. On multivariate analysis, stage of disease and hormone receptor status were associated with disease-free survival, but histology was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ILC is more often multicentric, bilateral, and associated with a positive margin of resection, local control and survival are similar to IDC. ILC can be treated similarly to IDC with good results.

PTPH1 cooperates with vitamin D receptor to stimulate breast cancer growth through their mutual stabilization

Tyrosine phosphorylation is tightly regulated by protein tyrosine kinases (PTKs) and protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTPs), and plays a critical role in malignant transformation and progression. While PTKs have a well-established role in regulating breast cancer growth, contribution of PTPs remains mostly unknown. Here, we report that the tyrosine phosphatase PTPH1 stimulates breast cancer growth through regulating vitamin D receptor (VDR) expression. PTPH1 was shown to be over-expressed in 49% of primary breast cancer and levels of its protein expression positively correlate with the clinic metastasis, suggesting its oncogenic activity. Indeed, PTPH1 promotes breast cancer growth by a mechanism independent of its phosphatase activity but dependent of its stimulatory effect on the nuclear receptor VDR protein expression and depletion of induced VDR abolishes the PTPH1 oncogenic activity. Additional analyses showed that PTPH1 binds VDR and increases its cytoplasmic accumulation leading to their mutual stabilization and stable expression of a nuclear localization deficient VDR abolishes the growth-inhibitory activity of the receptor independent of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (vitamin D3). These results reveal a new paradigm in which a protein tyrosine phosphatase may stimulate breast cancer growth through increasing cytoplasmic translocation of a nuclear receptor leading to their mutual stabilization.

Invasive lobular vs. ductal breast cancer: a stage-matched comparison of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is less common than invasive ductal breast cancer (IDC), more difficult to detect mammographically, and usually diagnosed at a later stage. Does delayed diagnosis of ILC affect survival? We used a national registry to compare outcomes of patients with stage-matched ILC and IDC.

METHODS

Query of the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry identified 263,408 women diagnosed with IDC or ILC between 1993 and 2003. Survival of patients matched by T and N stage was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis.

RESULTS

When compared with IDC, ILC was more likely to be >2 cm (43.1 vs. 32.6%; P < 0.001), lymph node positive (36.8 vs. 34.4%; P < 0.001), and ER positive (93.1 vs. 75.6%; P < 0.001). The 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was significantly better for patients with ILC than for those with IDC, before (90 vs. 88%; P < 0.001) and after matching for stage T1N0 (98 vs. 96%; P < 0.001), T2N0 (94 vs. 88%; P < 0.001), and T3N0 (92 vs. 83%, P < 0.001). The 5-year DSS for patients with nodal metastasis of ILC vs. IDC was 89% vs. 88% (P = NS) for stage T1N1, 81 vs. 73% (P < 0.001) for T2N1, and 72 vs. 56% (P < 0.001) for T3N1. Multivariate analysis identified a 14% survival benefit for ILC (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Stage-matched prognosis is better for patients with ILC than for those with IDC. Our findings support a different biology for ILC and are important for counseling and risk stratification.