Aktas Aysegul, Gurleyik Meryem Gunay, Akkus Dogukan, Ucur Zekeriya, Aker Fugen
General Surgery, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences Turkiye, SBU Haydarpasa Numune Egitim Ve Arastırma Hastanesi, Selimiye, Tibbiye Caddesi, No:23, 34668, Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey.
Pathology,, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences Turkiye, Istanbul, Turkey.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2025 May 21. doi: 10.1007/s10549-025-07729-z.
An understanding of the differences among the invasive lobular breast carcinoma (ILC) variants is crucial for risk stratification, and tailored treatment planning. This article compares variants of ILC according to their clinical outcomes and histopathological features.
Patients diagnosed with ILC between January 2010 and August 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into three groups; 1: classic ILC (cILC); 2: pleomorphic lobular carcinoma (PLC); 3: mixed ILC. Mixed ILC was divided into three subgroups: 3a, cILC + PLC; 3b, cILC + mixed; 3c, PLC + mixed.
A total of 254 patients were included in the study. Median overall survival (OS) was 48 months, and median disease-free survival (DFS) was 46 months. Locoregional recurrence (LRR) occurred in 15 (5.9%) of the patients, and distant metastasis (DM) developed in 23 (9.1%). Death occurred in 16 (6.3%) patients. There was no significant difference in LRR rate among groups. When considering five groups (Groups 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c), the median OS was 62.5, 52.0, 50.8, 56.7, and 41.5 months, respectively, while the median DFS was 60.3, 46.6, 46.7, 54.5, and 39.6 months, respectively. Notably, the PLC + mixed group without a classic variant (Group 3c) exhibited even worse outcomes than pure PLC.
In this study, pure cILC exhibited the best prognostic features among the ILC variants. Furthermore, we observed a higher mastectomy rate in patients with pleomorphic variants. Surgical management of ILC remains controversial. Moreover, comprehensive randomized controlled trials are essential to establish standardized treatment protocols for ILC patients.
了解浸润性小叶乳腺癌(ILC)各亚型之间的差异对于风险分层和制定个性化治疗方案至关重要。本文根据临床结局和组织病理学特征对ILC的各亚型进行比较。
对2010年1月至2021年8月期间诊断为ILC的患者进行回顾性评估。患者分为三组:1:经典型ILC(cILC);2:多形性小叶癌(PLC);3:混合型ILC。混合型ILC又分为三个亚组:3a,cILC + PLC;3b,cILC + 混合型;3c,PLC + 混合型。
本研究共纳入254例患者。总生存(OS)中位数为48个月,无病生存(DFS)中位数为46个月。15例(5.9%)患者发生局部区域复发(LRR),23例(9.1%)出现远处转移(DM)。16例(6.3%)患者死亡。各组间LRR率无显著差异。在考虑五组(第1、2、3a、3b和3c组)时,OS中位数分别为62.5、52.0、50.8、56.7和41.5个月,而DFS中位数分别为60.3、46.6、46.7、54.5和39.6个月。值得注意的是,不含经典亚型的PLC + 混合型组(第3c组)的结局甚至比单纯PLC更差。
在本研究中,纯cILC在ILC各亚型中预后特征最佳。此外,我们观察到多形性亚型患者的乳房切除术率较高。ILC的手术治疗仍存在争议。此外,开展全面的随机对照试验对于建立ILC患者的标准化治疗方案至关重要。