The impact of chemotherapy sequence on survival in node-positive invasive lobular carcinoma

Invasive lobular breast cancer: Focus on prevention, genetics, diagnosis, and treatment

Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the most common of the breast cancer special types, accounting for up to 15% of all breast malignancies. The distinctive biological features of ILC include the loss of the cell adhesion molecule E-cadherin, which drives the tumor's peculiar discohesive growth pattern, with cells arranged in single file and dispersed throughout the stroma. Typically, such tumors originate in the lobules, are more commonly bilateral compared to invasive ductal cancer (IDC) and require a more accurate diagnostic examination through imaging. They are luminal in molecular subtype, and exhibit estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity and HER2 negativity, thus presenting a more unpredictable response to neoadjuvant therapies. There has been a significant increase in research focused on this distinctive breast cancer subtype, including studies on its pathology, its clinical and surgical management, and the high-resolution definition of its genomic profile, as well as the development of new therapeutic perspectives. This review will summarize the heterogeneous pattern of this unique disease, focusing on challenges in its comprehensive clinical management and on future insights and research objectives.

Effect of histological breast cancer subtypes invasive lobular versus non-special type on survival in early intermediate-to-high-risk breast carcinoma: results from the SUCCESS trials

BACKGROUND

Invasive lobular breast carcinomas (ILC) have different histological features compared to non-special type carcinomas (NST), but the effect of histological subtypes on survival is controversial. In this study, we compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes between ILC and NST based on a large pooled data set from three adjuvant breast cancer trials (SUCCESS A, B, and C) and investigated a potential differential effect of recurrence risk related to nodal stage on survival.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2017, the large randomized controlled SUCCESS A, B, and C trials enrolled 8190 patients with primary, intermediate-to-high-risk breast carcinoma. All patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, and endocrine and/or HER2-targeted treatment was given where appropriate. Survival outcomes in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed using log-rank tests as well as univariable and adjusted multivariable Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In the SUCCESS trials, 6284 patients had NST and 952 had ILC. The median follow-up time was 64 months. ILC patients were older, more likely to receive mastectomy, and more likely to have larger tumor sizes, lymph node infiltration, hormone receptor-positive, HER2neu-negative, and luminal A-like tumors than NST patients. In the overall cohort, no significant differences between ILC and NST were detectable regarding the four survival endpoints, with hazard ratios obtained in adjusted multivariable cox regressions of 0.96 (95% CI 0.77-1.21, p = 0.743) for DFS, 1.13 (95% CI 0.85-1.50, p = 0.414) for OS, 1.21 (95% CI 0.89-1.66, p = 0.229) for BCSS, and 0.95 (95% CI 0.73-1.24, p = 0.689) for DDFS. However, a differential effect of nodal stage on survival was observed, with better survival for ILC patients with pN0/pN1 tumors and worse survival for ILC patients with pN2/pN3 tumors compared to NST patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that ILC was associated with worse survival compared to NST for patients at high risk of recurrence due to advanced lymph node infiltration. These findings should be taken into account for treatment decisions and monitoring.

The incidence of discordant clinical and genomic risk in patients with invasive lobular or ductal carcinoma of the breast: a National Cancer Database Study

When molecular testing classifies breast tumors as low risk but clinical risk is high, the optimal management strategy is unknown. One group of patients who may be more likely to have such discordant risk are those with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. We sought to examine whether patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are more likely to have clinical high/genomic low-risk tumors compared to those with invasive ductal carcinoma, and to evaluate the impact on receipt of chemotherapy and overall survival. We conducted a cohort study using the National Cancer Database from 2010–2016. Patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, stage I-III breast cancer who underwent 70-gene signature testing were included. We evaluated the proportion of patients with discordant clinical and genomic risk by histology using Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models with and without propensity score matching. A total of 7399 patients (1497 with invasive lobular carcinoma [20.2%]) were identified. Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma were significantly more likely to fall into a discordant risk category compared to those with invasive ductal carcinoma (46.8% versus 37.1%, p < 0.001), especially in the clinical high/genomic low risk subgroup (35.6% versus 19.2%, p < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis of the clinical high/genomic low-risk cohort who received chemotherapy, invasive ductal carcinoma patients had significantly improved overall survival compared to those with invasive lobular carcinoma (p = 0.02). These findings suggest that current tools for stratifying clinical and genomic risk could be improved for those with invasive lobular carcinoma to better tailor treatment selection.

Survival Outcomes in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Compared to Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Invasive Ductal Carcinoma

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) accounts for 10-15% of breast cancers and has distinct characteristics compared with the more common invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Studies have shown that ILC may be less sensitive to chemotherapy than IDC, with lower rates of complete pathological response after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, but it is not clear how this affects long-term survival. Patients at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust between 1975 and 2016 diagnosed with ER+ IDC or ER+ ILC were eligible for inclusion. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used for analysis. There was no difference in overall survival comparing ER+ ILC to ER+ IDC (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.04) with a median follow-up time of 8.3 years compared to 8.4 years in IDC. However, ER+HER2- ILC had worse survival compared to ER+HER2- IDC in those that received chemotherapy (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.01). Here, median follow-up time was 7.0 years in ILC compared to 8.1 years in IDC. These results indicate worse overall survival after chemotherapy (neo-adjuvant and adjuvant) in ILC compared to ER+HER2- IDC even when correcting for tumour grade, age, size, and nodal involvement, but validation is needed in a larger study population.

Changes in Management Strategy and Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Extent of Surgery in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB)

Background

Given reports of low response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), we evaluated whether use of alternative strategies such as neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is increasing. Additionally, we investigated whether NET is associated with more breast conservation surgery (BCS) and less extensive axillary surgery in those with ILC.

Patients and Methods

We queried the NCDB from 2010 to 2016 and identified all women with stage I–III hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HR+/HER2−) ILC who underwent surgery. We used Cochrane–Armitage tests to evaluate trends in utilization of the following treatment strategies: NAC, short-course NET, long-course NET, and primary surgery. We compared rates of BCS and extent of axillary surgery stratified by clinical stage and tumor receptor subtype for each treatment strategy.

Results

Among 69,312 cases of HR+/HER2− ILC, NAC use decreased slightly (from 4.7 to 4.2%, p = 0.007), while there was a small but significant increase in long-course NET (from 1.6 to 2.7%, p < 0.001). Long-course NET was significantly associated with increased BCS in patients with cT2–cT4 disease and less extensive axillary surgery in clinically node positive patients with HR+/HER2− tumors.

Conclusions

Primary surgery remains the most common treatment strategy in patients with ILC. However, NAC use decreased slightly over the study period, while the use of long-course NET had a small increase and was associated with more BCS and less extensive axillary surgery.

Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Node-Positive Invasive Lobular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is often recommended for patients with node-positive invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) despite unclear benefit in this largely hormone receptor-positive (HR+) group. We sought to compare overall survival (OS) between patients with node-positive ILC who received neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) and those who received NACT.

METHODS

Women with cT1-4c, cN1-3 HR+ ILC in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2014) who underwent surgery following neoadjuvant therapy were identified. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to estimate unadjusted and adjusted overall survival (OS), respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 5942 patients in the cohort, 855 received NET and 5087 received NACT. NET recipients were older (70 vs. 54 years) and had more comorbidities (Charlson-Deyo score ≥ 1: 21.1% vs. 11.5%), lower cT classification (cT3-4: 44.2% vs. 51.0%), lower rates of mastectomy (72.5% vs. 82.2%), lower rates of pathologic complete response (0% vs. 2.5%), and lower rates of postlumpectomy (73.2% vs. 91.0%) and postmastectomy (60.0% vs. 80.8%) radiation versus NACT recipients (all p < 0.001). NACT recipients had higher unadjusted 10-year OS versus NET recipients (57.9% vs. 36.0%), but after adjustment, there was no significant difference in OS between the two groups (p = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with node-positive ILC who received NET presented with smaller tumors, older age, and greater burden of comorbidities versus NACT recipients but had similar adjusted OS. While there is evidence from clinical trials supporting efficacy of NET in HR+ breast cancer, our findings suggest the need for further, histology-specific investigation regarding the optimal inclusion and sequence of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy in ILC.