Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Häufige urologisch-sexualmedizinische Themen in der Praxis sind das Thema des MMW-Webinars am 5. Juni von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. Konkret geht es um die Frage, wann bei Harnwegsinfektionen auf Antibiotika verzichtet werden kann, und um ein Update zur Therapie von Libido- und Potenzstörungen des Mannes. Der dritte Vortrag behandelt sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten. Stellen Sie Ihre Fragen an die Experten und sammeln Sie 2 CME-Punkte. Jetzt gleich anmelden!
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2022

26.03.2022 | Review

Invasive lobular carcinoma: an understudied emergent subtype of breast cancer

verfasst von: Jason A. Mouabbi, Amy Hassan, Bora Lim, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Debasish Tripathy, Rachel M. Layman

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common histologic subtype of breast cancer after invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), accounting for 10–15% of all breast cancer cases. Although most ILCs are of the luminal A intrinsic subtype, with favorable prognostic features, conflicting literature data are available on their outcomes compared to IDC with reports suggesting a higher risk of distant recurrence after 10 years. Historically, studies have combined ILC and IDC, with outcomes largely driven by the behavior of IDC given that it represents 90% of breast cancers. However, over the past 5 years, reports of several studies aimed at understanding ILC at the clinical, cellular, and molecular levels have been published, showing that IDC and ILC are distinct entities. In this review, we highlight the unique characteristics of ILC and describe the need for dedicated ILC clinical trials.
Literatur
1.
Li CI et al (2003) Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA 289(11):1421–1424PubMedCrossRef
2.
Iorfida M et al (2012) Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(2):713–723PubMedCrossRef
3.
Barroso-Sousa R, Metzger-Filho O (2016) Differences between invasive lobular and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: results and therapeutic implications. Ther Adv Med Oncol 8(4):261–266PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Guiu S et al (2014) Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: how special are they for systemic therapy decisions? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 92(3):235–257PubMedCrossRef
5.
Pestalozzi BC et al (2008) Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26(18):3006–3014PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ferlicot S et al (2004) Wide metastatic spreading in infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Cancer 40(3):336–341PubMedCrossRef
7.
Li CI et al (2000) Changing incidence rate of invasive lobular breast carcinoma among older women. Cancer Interdiscip Int J Am Cancer Soc 88(11):2561–2569
8.
Desmedt C et al (2016) Genomic characterization of primary invasive lobular breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(16):1872–1881PubMedCrossRef
9.
Rakha EA et al (2008) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer 44(1):73–83PubMedCrossRef
10.
Arpino G et al (2004) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res 6(3):1–8CrossRef
11.
Sastre-Garau X et al (1996) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathologic analysis of 975 cases with reference to data on conservative therapy and metastatic patterns. Cancer Interdiscip Int J Am Cancer Soc 77(1):113–120
12.
Richard F et al (2020) Characterization of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and genomic alterations in metastatic lobular breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 26(23):6254–6265PubMedCrossRef
13.
Barcenas CH et al (2012) Survival outcomes in HER2-positive invasive lobular breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 30(15_suppl):612–612CrossRef
14.
Bergeron A et al (2021) Triple-negative breast lobular carcinoma: a luminal androgen receptor carcinoma with specific ESRRA mutations. Mod Pathol 34(7):1282–1296PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Taniguchi K et al (2020) Triple-negative pleomorphic lobular carcinoma and expression of androgen receptor: Personal case series and review of the literature. PLoS ONE 15(7):e0235790PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Williams LA et al (2019) Differences in race, molecular and tumor characteristics among women diagnosed with invasive ductal and lobular breast carcinomas. Cancer Causes & Control CCC 30(1):31–39PubMedCrossRef
17.
Rakha EA, Ellis IO (2010) Lobular breast carcinoma and its variants. Semin Diagn Pathol 27:49PubMedCrossRef
18.
Adams AL et al (2009) Histologic grading of invasive lobular carcinoma: does use of a 2-tiered nuclear grading system improve interobserver variability? Ann Diagn Pathol 13(4):223–225PubMedCrossRef
19.
Metzger-Filho O et al (2019) Mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma of the breast: prognosis and the importance of histologic grade. Oncologist 24(7):e441–e449PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zengel B et al (2015) Comparison of the clinicopathological features of invasive ductal, invasive lobular, and mixed (invasive ductal + invasive lobular) carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer 22(4):374–381PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Reed AEM et al (2015) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology, biomarkers and’omics. Breast Cancer Res 17(1):1–11CrossRef
23.
Dabbs DJ et al (2013) Lobular neoplasia of the breast revisited with emphasis on the role of E-cadherin immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol 37(7):e1–e11PubMedCrossRef
24.
Moll R et al (1993) Differential loss of E-cadherin expression in infiltrating ductal and lobular breast carcinomas. Am J Pathol 143(6):1731PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Morrogh M et al (2012) Cadherin–catenin complex dissociation in lobular neoplasia of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(2):641–652PubMedCrossRef
26.
Schackmann RCJ et al (2011) Cytosolic p120-catenin regulates growth of metastatic lobular carcinoma through Rock1-mediated anoikis resistance. J Clin Investig 121(8):3176–3188PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R, Chivukula M (2007) Lobular versus ductal breast neoplasms: the diagnostic utility of p120 catenin. Am J Surg Pathol 31(3):427–437PubMedCrossRef
28.
Johnson K, Sarma D, Hwang ES (2015) Lobular breast cancer series: imaging. Breast Cancer Res 17(1):1–8CrossRef
29.
Lehmann U (2015) Lobular breast cancer-the most common special subtype or a most special common subtype? Springer, New YorkCrossRef
30.
Harris M et al (1984) A comparison of the metastatic pattern of infiltrating lobular carcinoma and infiltrating duct carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer 50(1):23–30PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Dixon A et al (1991) A comparison of the clinical metastatic patterns of invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Br J Cancer 63(4):634–635PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Korhonen T et al (2013) The impact of lobular and ductal breast cancer histology on the metastatic behavior and long term survival of breast cancer patients. Breast 22(6):1119–1124PubMedCrossRef
33.
Lamovec J, Bračkko M (1991) Metastatic pattern of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: an autopsy study. J Surg Oncol 48(1):28–33PubMedCrossRef
34.
He H et al (2014) Distant metastatic disease manifestations in infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Am J Roentgenol 202(5):1140–1148CrossRef
35.
Raap M et al (2015) High frequency of lobular breast cancer in distant metastases to the orbit. Cancer Med 4(1):104–111PubMedCrossRef
36.
Pramod N et al (2021) Comprehensive review of molecular mechanisms and clinical features of invasive lobular cancer. Oncologist 26(6):e943–e953PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
38.
Desmedt C et al (2019) ESR1 mutations in metastatic lobular breast cancer patients. NPJ Breast Cancer 5(1):1–7CrossRef
39.
Christgen M et al (2019) ERBB2 mutation frequency in lobular breast cancer with pleomorphic histology or high-risk characteristics by molecular expression profiling. Genes Chromosom Cancer 58(3):175–185PubMedCrossRef
40.
Pereira B et al (2016) The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refine their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes. Nat Commun 7(1):1–16
41.
42.
43.
Nayar U et al (2019) Acquired HER2 mutations in ER+ metastatic breast cancer confer resistance to estrogen receptor–directed therapies. Nat Genet 51(2):207–216PubMedCrossRef
44.
Kurozumi S et al (2020) Targetable ERBB2 mutation status is an independent marker of adverse prognosis in estrogen receptor positive, ERBB2 non-amplified primary lobular breast carcinoma: a retrospective in silico analysis of public datasets. Breast Cancer Res 22(1):85PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Mouabbi JA et al (2021) Management of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 190:189PubMedCrossRef
46.
André F et al (2019) Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 380(20):1929–1940PubMedCrossRef
47.
Ben-Baruch NE et al (2015) HER2-mutated breast cancer responds to treatment with single-agent neratinib, a second-generation HER2/EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. J Natl Comp Cancer Netw JNCCN 13(9):1061–1064CrossRef
48.
49.
50.
51.
Berns K et al (2017) Abstract 3380: synthetic lethal interaction between ARID1A mutation and BET bromodomain inhibition in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Can Res 77(13 Supplement):3380CrossRef
52.
53.
Klesse LJ et al (2020) The use of MEK inhibitors in neurofibromatosis type 1–associated tumors and management of toxicities. Oncologist 25(7):e1109–e1116PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Cocco E et al (2016) Dual CCNE1/PIK3CA targeting is synergistic in CCNE1-amplified/PIK3CA-mutated uterine serous carcinomas in vitro and in vivo. Br J Cancer 115(3):303–311PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Ma CX et al (2022) The phase II MutHER study of neratinib alone and in combination with fulvestrant in HER2 mutated, non-amplified metastatic breast cancer. Clinical Cancer Research. p. clincanres.CCR-21-3418-E.2021
56.
Jhaveri KHP, Waisman J et al (2021) Neratinib + fulvestrant + trastuzumab for hormone-receptor positive, HER2-mutant metastatic breast cancer, and neratinib + trastuzumab for HER2-mutant metastatic triple-negative disease: latest updates from the SUMMIT trial. 2021. Presented at 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: San Antonio
57.
Ross JS et al (2013) Relapsed classic E-Cadherin (CDH1)–mutated invasive lobular breast cancer shows a high frequency of HER2 (ERBB2) gene mutations. Clin Cancer Res 19(10):2668–2676PubMedCrossRef
58.
Reed AEM et al (2021) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: the increasing importance of this special subtype. Breast Cancer Res 23(1):1–16
59.
60.
Cerami E et al (2012) The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. AACR 2:401
61.
Gao J et al (2013) Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal 6(269):l1CrossRef
62.
Pearson A et al (2020) Inactivating NF1 mutations are enriched in advanced breast cancer and contribute to endocrine therapy resistance. Clin Cancer Res 26(3):608–622PubMedCrossRef
63.
Dossus L, Benusiglio PR (2015) Lobular breast cancer: incidence and genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Breast Cancer Res 17(1):1–8CrossRef
64.
Mavaddat N et al (2012) Pathology of breast and ovarian cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(1):134–147CrossRef
65.
Corso G et al (2016) CDH1 germline mutations and hereditary lobular breast cancer. Fam Cancer 15(2):215–219PubMedCrossRef
66.
Petridis C et al (2019) Frequency of pathogenic germline variants in CDH1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BRCA1, and TP53 in sporadic lobular breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomark 28(7):1162–1168CrossRef
67.
Masciari S et al (2012) Breast cancer phenotype in women with TP53 germline mutations: a Li-Fraumeni syndrome consortium effort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(3):1125–1130PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Yadav S et al (2021) Germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes among women with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. J Clin Oncol 39:JCO2100640CrossRef
69.
Caldas C et al (1999) Familial gastric cancer: overview and guidelines for management. J Med Genet 36(12):873–880PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Keller G et al (1999) Diffuse type gastric and lobular breast carcinoma in a familial gastric cancer patient with an E-cadherin germline mutation. Am J Pathol 155(2):337–342PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
71.
van der Post RS et al (2015) Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated clinical guidelines with an emphasis on germline CDH1 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 52(6):361PubMedCrossRef
72.
73.
Consortium C.B.C.C.-C (2004) CHEK2* 1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer: a collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies. Am J Hum Genet 74(6):1175–1182CrossRef
74.
Couch FJ et al (2015) Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(4):304–311PubMedCrossRef
75.
Schon K, Tischkowitz M (2018) Clinical implications of germline mutations in breast cancer: TP53. Breast Cancer Res Treat 167(2):417–423PubMedCrossRef
76.
Toikkanen S, Pylkkänen L, Joensuu H (1997) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast has better short- and long-term survival than invasive ductal carcinoma. Br J Cancer 76(9):1234–1240PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
77.
Yang C et al (2020) Comparison of overall survival between invasive lobular breast carcinoma and invasive ductal breast carcinoma: a propensity score matching study based on SEER database. Front Oncol 10:590643PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
78.
García-Fernández A et al (2015) Comparative long-term study of a large series of patients with invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma. Loco-regional recurrence, metastasis, and survival. Breast J 21(5):533–537PubMedCrossRef
79.
Moran MS, Yang Q, Haffty BG (2009) The Yale University experience of early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) treated with breast conservation treatment (BCT): analysis of clinical-pathologic features, long-term outcomes, and molecular expression of COX-2, Bcl-2, and p53 as a function of histology. Breast J 15(6):571–578PubMedCrossRef
80.
Molland JG et al (2004) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma–a comparison of diagnosis, management and outcome with infiltrating duct carcinoma. Breast 13(5):389–396PubMedCrossRef
81.
Fortunato L et al (2012) 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. Ann Surg Oncol 19(4):1107–1114PubMedCrossRef
82.
Lim ST et al (2014) A comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast according to molecular subtype in a Korean population. World J Surg Oncol 12(1):56PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
83.
Adachi Y et al (2016) Comparison of clinical outcomes between luminal invasive ductal carcinoma and luminal invasive lobular carcinoma. BMC Cancer 16(1):248PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
84.
Chen Z et al (2017) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a special histological type compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. PLoS ONE 12(9):e0182397PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
85.
Flores-Díaz D et al (2019) Impact of invasive lobular carcinoma on long-term outcomes in Mexican breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 176(1):243–249PubMedCrossRef
86.
Engstrøm MJ et al (2015) Invasive lobular breast cancer: the prognostic impact of histopathological grade E-cadherin and molecular subtypes. Histopathology 66(3):409–419PubMedCrossRef
87.
Chamalidou C et al (2021) Survival patterns of invasive lobular and invasive ductal breast cancer in a large population-based cohort with two decades of follow up. Breast 59:294–300PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
88.
89.
Felts JL et al (2017) An analysis of oncotype Dx recurrence scores and clinicopathologic characteristics in invasive lobular breast cancer. Breast J 23(6):677–686PubMedCrossRef
90.
Kelly CM et al (2010) Utility of oncotype DX risk estimates in clinically intermediate risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-normal, grade II, lymph node-negative breast cancers. Cancer 116(22):5161–5167PubMedCrossRef
91.
92.
Chen XH et al (2019) 21-gene recurrence score and adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Biomark Med 13(2):83–93PubMedCrossRef
93.
Kizy S et al (2017) Impact of the 21-gene recurrence score on outcome in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165(3):757–763PubMedCrossRef
94.
Makower D et al (2022) The 21-gene recurrence score in early non-ductal breast cancer: a National Cancer Database analysis. NPJ Breast Cancer 8(1):4PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
95.
Christgen M et al (2020) Differential impact of prognostic parameters in hormone receptor–positive lobular breast cancer. Cancer 126(22):4847–4858PubMedCrossRef
96.
97.
Metzger O, Cardoso F, Poncet C, Desmedt C, Linn S, Wesseling J, Hilbers F, Aalders K, Delorenzi M, Delaloge S, Pierga JY, Brain E, Vrijaldenhoven S, Neijenhuis PA, Rutgers E, Piccart M, L vant-Veer, G Viale, (2020) Clinical utility of mammaprint testing in invasive lobular carcinoma: results from the MINDACT phase III trial. Eur J Cancer 138:S5–S6CrossRef
98.
Jenkins JA et al (2021) The 70-gene signature test as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 191:401PubMedCrossRef
99.
Sestak I et al (2020) Prognostic value of endopredict in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 26(17):4682–4687PubMedCrossRef
100.
Lænkholm AV et al (2020) Population-based study of prosigna-PAM50 and outcome among postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative operable invasive lobular or ductal breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 20(4):e423–e432PubMedCrossRef
101.
102.
Luveta J et al (2020) Invasive lobular breast cancer as a distinct disease: implications for therapeutic strategy. Oncol Ther 8(1):1–11PubMedCrossRef
103.
Sledge GW, Chagpar A, Perou C (2016) Collective wisdom: lobular carcinoma of the breast. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 36:18–21CrossRef
104.
Dixon JM et al (2011) Invasive lobular carcinoma: response to neoadjuvant letrozole therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(3):871–877PubMedCrossRef
105.
Thornton MJ et al (2019) Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in node-positive invasive lobular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 26(10):3166–3177PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
106.
Metzger Filho O et al (2015) Relative effectiveness of letrozole compared with tamoxifen for patients with lobular carcinoma in the BIG 1–98 trial. J Clin Oncol 33(25):2772PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
107.
Knauer M et al (2015) Abstract S2–06: Survival advantage of anastrozol compared to tamoxifen for lobular breast cancer in the ABCSG-8 study. Can Res 75(9 Supplement):S2-06
108.
Sikora MJ et al (2014) Invasive lobular carcinoma cell lines are characterized by unique estrogen-mediated gene expression patterns and altered tamoxifen response. Cancer Res 74(5):1463–1474PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
109.
Strasser-Weippl K et al (2018) Outcomes in women with invasive ductal or invasive lobular early stage breast cancer treated with anastrozole or exemestane in CCTG (NCIC CTG) MA.27. Eur J Cancer 90:19–25PubMedCrossRef
110.
Ariazi EA et al (2007) Exemestane’s 17-hydroxylated metabolite exerts biological effects as an androgen. Mol Cancer Ther 6(11):2817PubMedCrossRef
111.
Goss PE et al (2004) Effects of the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane and the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor letrozole on bone and lipid metabolism in ovariectomized rats. Clin Cancer Res 10(17):5717–5723PubMedCrossRef
112.
Riva C et al (2005) Immunohistochemical study of androgen receptors in breast carcinoma. Evidence of their frequent expression in lobular carcinoma. Virchows Arch 447(4):695–700PubMedCrossRef
113.
Gao JJ et al (2020) CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis. Lancet Oncol 21(2):250–260PubMedCrossRef
114.
Orlandi A et al (2020) Poor efficacy of palbociclib in second-line treatment of metastatic lobular breast cancer in a case series: use before or never more? Breast J 26(7):1458–1460PubMedCrossRef
115.
Orlandi A et al (2020) Palbociclib plus fulvestrant or everolimus plus exemestane for pretreated advanced breast cancer with lobular histotype in ER+/HER2- patients: a propensity score-matched analysis of a multicenter retrospective patient series. J Pers Med 10(4):291PubMedCentralCrossRef
116.
117.
Hortobagyi G et al (2014) Everolimus plus exemestane in patients with advanced invasive lobular carcinoma: efficacy and safety results from BOLERO-2. J Clin Oncol 32:152–152CrossRef
118.
119.
Thompson ED et al (2017) PD-L1 expression and the immune microenvironment in primary invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast. Mod Pathol 30(11):1551–1560PubMedCrossRef
120.
Michaut M et al (2016) Integration of genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic data identifies two biologically distinct subtypes of invasive lobular breast cancer. Sci Rep 6(1):1–13CrossRef
121.
Doornebal CW et al (2013) A preclinical mouse model of invasive lobular breast cancer metastasis. Cancer Res 73(1):353–363PubMedCrossRef
122.
Du T et al (2018) Invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma differ in immune response, protein translation efficiency and metabolism. Sci Rep 8(1):7205PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
123.
Dirix LY et al (2018) Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1b JAVELIN Solid Tumor study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 167(3):671–686PubMedCrossRef
124.
Rugo HS et al (2018) Safety and antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in patients with estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 24(12):2804PubMedCrossRef
125.
Voorwerk L et al (2021) LBA3 Atezolizumab with carboplatin as immune induction in metastatic lobular breast cancer: first results of the GELATO-trial. Ann Oncol 32:S58CrossRef
126.
Chaturvedi S, Heys SD, Chaturvedi RS et al (2004) Primary chemotherapy for breast cancers: does histological type of cancer matter? Breast Cancer Res Treat 88:S106
127.
Cocquyt VF et al (2003) Different responses to preoperative chemotherapy for invasive lobular and invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 29(4):361–367PubMedCrossRef
128.
Cristofanilli M et al (2005) Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol 23(1):41–48PubMedCrossRef
129.
Delpech Y et al (2013) Clinical benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen receptor-positive invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas. Br J Cancer 108(2):285–291PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
130.
Lips EH et al (2012) Lobular histology and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136(1):35–43PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
131.
Loibl S et al (2014) Response and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 1,051 patients with infiltrating lobular breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(1):153–162PubMedCrossRef
132.
Petrelli F, Barni S (2013) Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ductal compared to lobular carcinoma of the breast: a meta-analysis of published trials including 1,764 lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 142(2):227–235PubMedCrossRef
133.
Pu RT et al (2005) Pathologic features of breast cancer associated with complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: importance of tumor necrosis. Am J Surg Pathol 29(3):354–358PubMedCrossRef
134.
Truin W et al (2016) Differences in response and surgical management with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive lobular versus ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23(1):51–57PubMedCrossRef
135.
Tubiana-Hulin M et al (2006) Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lobular and ductal breast carcinomas: a retrospective study on 860 patients from one institution. Ann Oncol 17(8):1228–1233PubMedCrossRef
136.
Wenzel C et al (2007) Invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma of breast differ in response following neoadjuvant therapy with epidoxorubicin and docetaxel + G-CSF. Breast Cancer Res Treat 104(1):109–114PubMedCrossRef
137.
Mathieu MC et al (2004) The poor responsiveness of infiltrating lobular breast carcinomas to neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be explained by their biological profile. Eur J Cancer 40(3):342–351PubMedCrossRef
138.
Rastogi P et al (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26(5):778–785PubMedCrossRef
139.
Tamirisa N et al (2019) The impact of chemotherapy sequence on survival in node-positive invasive lobular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 120(2):132–141PubMedPubMedCentral
140.
Truin W et al (2012) Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with invasive ductal versus lobular breast cancer. Ann Oncol 23(11):2859–2865PubMedCrossRef
141.
Marmor S et al (2017) Relative effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive lobular compared with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 123(16):3015–3021PubMedCrossRef
142.
Pérez-Garcia J, Cortés J, Metzger Filho O (2019) Efficacy of single-agent chemotherapy for patients with advanced invasive lobular carcinoma: a pooled analysis from three clinical trials. Oncologist 24(8):1041–1047PubMedCrossRef
143.
Yu J et al (2011) Classical-type invasive lobular carcinoma with HER2 overexpression: clinical, histologic, and hormone receptor characteristics. Am J Clin Pathol 136(1):88–97PubMedCrossRef
144.
Altundag K (2019) HER2+ and triple-negative phenotypes in invasive lobular carcinoma might have different specific biological features. Breast Cancer Res Treat 176(3):719–719PubMedCrossRef
145.
Huang X et al (2021) Clinicopathological features of and neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive classic invasive lobular carcinoma. Hum Pathol 117:51–59PubMedCrossRef
146.
Zhang H et al (2020) Frequency, clinicopathologic characteristics, and follow-up of HER2-positive nonpleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol 153(5):583–592PubMedCrossRef
147.
Da Ros L et al (2018) HER2-positive lobular versus ductal carcinoma of the breast: pattern of first recurrence and molecular insights. Clin Breast Cancer 18(5):e1133–e1139PubMedCrossRef
148.
Metzger-Filho O et al (2013) Magnitude of trastuzumab benefit in patients with HER2-positive, invasive lobular breast carcinoma: results from the HERA trial. J Clin Oncol 31(16):1954–1960PubMedCrossRef
149.
Chumsri S et al (2021) Outcome and immune landscape of HER2-positive invasive lobular carcinoma in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N9831 (Alliance) trial. J Clin Oncol 39(15_suppl):535–535CrossRef
150.
Metadaten
Titel
Invasive lobular carcinoma: an understudied emergent subtype of breast cancer
verfasst von
Jason A. Mouabbi
Amy Hassan
Bora Lim
Gabriel N. Hortobagyi
Debasish Tripathy
Rachel M. Layman
Publikationsdatum
26.03.2022
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06572-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Clinical trial

Predictive value of topoisomerase II alpha protein for clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis in early breast cancer

Brief Communication

HER2-positive apocrine carcinoma of the breast: a population-based analysis of treatment and outcome

Epidemiology

The clinical impact of MRI on surgical planning for patients with in-breast tumor recurrence

Preclinical Study

PGM5P3-AS1 regulates MAP1LC3C to promote cell ferroptosis and thus inhibiting the malignant progression of triple-negative breast cancer

Epidemiology

Trajectories of objectively measured physical function among older breast cancer survivors in comparison with cancer-free controls

Preclinical study

PIK3CA-AKT pathway predominantly acts in developing ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence long after breast-conserving surgery

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

29.05.2024 Larynxkarzinom Nachrichten

Fast ein Viertel der Personen mit mäßig dysplastischen Stimmlippenläsionen entwickelt einen Kehlkopftumor. Solche Personen benötigen daher eine besonders enge ärztliche Überwachung.

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

29.05.2024 Urothelkarzinom Nachrichten

Ob Patienten und Patientinnen mit neu diagnostiziertem Blasenkrebs ein Jahr später Bedauern über die Therapieentscheidung empfinden, wird einer Studie aus England zufolge von der Radikalität und dem Erfolg des Eingriffs beeinflusst.

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

28.05.2024 Nebenwirkungen der Krebstherapie Nachrichten

Kardiotoxische Nebenwirkungen einer Therapie mit Immuncheckpointhemmern mögen selten sein – wenn sie aber auftreten, wird es für Patienten oft lebensgefährlich. Voruntersuchung und Monitoring sind daher obligat.

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

28.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

„Kalte“ Tumoren werden heiß – CD28-kostimulatorische Antikörper sollen dies ermöglichen. Am besten könnten diese in Kombination mit BiTEs und Checkpointhemmern wirken. Erste klinische Studien laufen bereits.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise