Invasive Pleomorphic Lobular Carcinoma of the breast: Clinicopathological features, treatment patterns and outcomes

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-20 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109714
N Peradze , A Polizzi , E Pagan , E Bottazzoli , V Bagnardi , C Sangalli , C Morigi , E De Camili , P Rafaniello Raviele , G Corso , V Galimberti , M Colleoni , P Veronesi
{"title":"Invasive Pleomorphic Lobular Carcinoma of the breast: Clinicopathological features, treatment patterns and outcomes","authors":"N Peradze ,&nbsp;A Polizzi ,&nbsp;E Pagan ,&nbsp;E Bottazzoli ,&nbsp;V Bagnardi ,&nbsp;C Sangalli ,&nbsp;C Morigi ,&nbsp;E De Camili ,&nbsp;P Rafaniello Raviele ,&nbsp;G Corso ,&nbsp;V Galimberti ,&nbsp;M Colleoni ,&nbsp;P Veronesi","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma (PLC) is a rare variant of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast (ILC) and few studies have reported controversial data regarding its outcomes.</div><div>The information provided appears to indicate that PLC is more aggressive and has worse outcome when compared to classical ILC (cILC); however, due to its rarity, studies with a considerable cohort of patients are lacking.</div><div>The purpose of this study was to compare the clinicopathological characteristics and disease outcomes of PLC patients to those with cILC in a large cohort from a single institution.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective comparative study was performed, including 226 patients with PLC and 2067 patients with cILC operated at the European Institute of Oncology (EIO) between 2001 and 2018. The median follow-up period for both groups was 7 years.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>5- and 10-years invasive disease-free survival were better in the matched classical lobular carcinoma patients compared to the pleomorphic variant.</div><div>The 5- and 10-years overall survival confirmed the trend previously seen in favor of the classical variant, with a 5-year survival of 98.4% vs 83.6% and a 10-year survival of 93.4% vs 69.5%, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The pleomorphic variant has been confirmed to be characterized by worse clinicopathological characteristics and worse clinical outcomes than the classical variant.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"51 6","pages":"Article 109714"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798325001428","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma (PLC) is a rare variant of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast (ILC) and few studies have reported controversial data regarding its outcomes.
The information provided appears to indicate that PLC is more aggressive and has worse outcome when compared to classical ILC (cILC); however, due to its rarity, studies with a considerable cohort of patients are lacking.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinicopathological characteristics and disease outcomes of PLC patients to those with cILC in a large cohort from a single institution.

Methods

A retrospective comparative study was performed, including 226 patients with PLC and 2067 patients with cILC operated at the European Institute of Oncology (EIO) between 2001 and 2018. The median follow-up period for both groups was 7 years.

Results

5- and 10-years invasive disease-free survival were better in the matched classical lobular carcinoma patients compared to the pleomorphic variant.
The 5- and 10-years overall survival confirmed the trend previously seen in favor of the classical variant, with a 5-year survival of 98.4% vs 83.6% and a 10-year survival of 93.4% vs 69.5%, respectively.

Conclusions

The pleomorphic variant has been confirmed to be characterized by worse clinicopathological characteristics and worse clinical outcomes than the classical variant.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
浸润性乳腺多形性小叶癌:临床病理特征、治疗模式和结果
多形性小叶癌(PLC)是一种罕见的乳腺浸润性小叶癌(ILC),很少有研究报道其预后有争议的数据。所提供的信息似乎表明,与传统的ILC (cILC)相比,PLC更具侵袭性,预后更差;然而,由于其罕见性,缺乏大量患者队列的研究。本研究的目的是比较来自单一机构的大型队列中PLC患者与cILC患者的临床病理特征和疾病结局。方法回顾性比较研究2001年至2018年在欧洲肿瘤研究所(EIO)手术的226例PLC患者和2067例cILC患者。两组的中位随访时间均为7年。结果经典小叶癌患者的5年和10年侵袭性无病生存率优于多形性变异患者。5年和10年的总生存率证实了先前看到的有利于经典变异的趋势,5年生存率分别为98.4%对83.6%,10年生存率为93.4%对69.5%。结论多形性变异体比经典变异体具有更差的临床病理特征和更差的临床预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Trends and future of the disease burden of malignant neoplasms of bone and articular cartilage in China from 1990 to 2023: An analysis based on the Global Burden of Disease 2023 Hepatobiliary surgical training in a changing educational landscape: An 18-year longitudinal analysis of a high-volume international fellowship programme Tumour localization and oncological outcomes in nonuterine leiomyosarcoma of the abdomen and pelvis Factors influencing surgical decision-making in breast cancer: A multicenter study in Japan The utility of large language models in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1