[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma (IPLC) is a very rare and distinct morphological variant of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), characterized by nuclear atypia and pleomorphism contrasted with the cytologic uniformity of ILC. This study evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis of IPLC compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 35 patients with IPLC and 6,184 patients with IDC, not otherwise specified. We compared the clinicopathologic characteristics, relapse-free survival (RFS) and disease specific survival (DSS) of patients who were surgically treated between January 1997 and December 2010.
Patients with IPLC presented at an older age with larger tumor size, worse histologic grade, higher rates of N3 stage, more multifocal/multicentric tumors, and more nipple-areolar complex involvement than those of patients with IDC. During the follow-up period, the IPLC group experienced five cases (14.3%) of disease recurrence and three cases (8.6%) of disease specific mortality compared with 637 cases (10.4%) of recurrence and 333 cases (5.4%) of disease specific mortality in the IDC group. Univariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method revealed that the IPLC group showed a significantly poorer prognosis than that of the IDC group (RFS, p=0.008; DSS, p<0.001). However, after adjusting for clinicopathologic factors, a multivariate analysis showed no statistical differences in RFS (p=0.396) and DSS (p=0.168) between the IPLC and the IDC groups.
Our data suggest that patients with IPLC present with poor prognostic factors such as large tumor size, poor histologic grade and advanced stage at diagnosis. These aggressive clinicopathologic characteristics may result in poor clinical outcomes. Although our study could not link IPLC histology to poor prognosis, considering the aggressive characteristics of IPLC, early detection and considerate treatment, including proper surgical and adjuvant intervention, could be helpful for disease progression and survival.
"Since then many studies have focused on this more aggressive subtype of ILC. Buchanan et al42 have found that pleomorphic lobular carcinomas are larger tumors, have more positive nodes, more frequently develop metastatic disease, and more often require mastectomies. By gene expression profiling, classic ILC falls into the luminal subtype,25 while PLC may be of luminal, HER2 or molecular apocrine subtype by expression profiling, although PLC seems to share a common molecular genetic pathway with classic lobular carcinomas.43–45 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The expression of basal cytokeratin markers CK5/6 in breast carcinomas has been associated with high histological grade and poor clinical outcome. A previous study has shown that CK5/6 can be detected in up to 17% of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILC). Here we study the expression of three basal cytokeratin markers (CK5/6, CK14, and CK17) in 53 ILC cases diagnosed by histology and lack of E-cadherin expression. Among them, 42 were classic lobular carcinomas, 6 were tubular-lobular carcinoma, and 5 were pleomorphic lobular carcinomas. There was no significant difference among these three groups in patients' age, tumor size, uni- and multi-focality, expression of ER and PR, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion and lymph node metastasis. The only statistically different factor was HER2 over-expression, which was observed only in pleomorphic ILC (P = 0.0073). None of the 53 cases expressed CK5/6, CK14 or CK17; and 51/53 cases expressed luminal markers CK8 and CK18, and the two negative cases were both classic lobular carcinoma, with positivity for ER and PR. In conclusion, all 53 cases of ILC failed to show expression by any of the three basal CK markers, suggesting that very few ILC will demonstrate a basal phenotype when assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). More studies are needed to investigate molecular classification in lobular carcinoma of the breast.
Breast cancer 10/2010; 4(1):49-55. DOI:10.4137/BCBCR.S5037
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.