Comprehensive characterization of invasive mammary carcinoma with lobular features: integrating morphology and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry patterns.

Background: Breast cancer treatment prioritizes molecular subtypes over histologic types. However, considering the unique biological behavior of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), its diagnosis is crucial for patient management. Therefore, this study aimed to review breast cancer cases, focusing on the E-cadherin patterns and lobular morphology of cases misclassified in the original reports.

Methods: A comprehensive review was conducted on 481 breast cancer biopsy cases diagnosed as invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST) or ILC with E-cadherin staining. These cases were categorized into six groups based on tumor morphology (ductal/lobular) and E-cadherin expression pattern (membranous/loss/aberrant): (1) ductal/membranous, (2) lobular/loss, (3) lobular/aberrant, (4) mixed, (5) ductal/loss or aberrant, and (6) lobular/membranous.

Results: In 211 cases (43.8%), an E-cadherin pattern indicating ILC (loss and aberrant) was observed alongside lobular morphology, representing 5.52% of all breast cancer biopsies during the relevant period. Moreover, 181 cases (37.6%) showed a membranous pattern with ductal morphology, 4 (0.8%) were mixed IBC-NST and ILC, and 85 (17.7%) exhibited discordance between morphology and E-cadherin expression. Notably, only 25.9% (15/58) of cases in group 3, characterized by aberrant E-cadherin patterns, were initially diagnosed as ILC, highlighting a significant diagnostic discrepancy. In group 6, where membranous E-cadherin pattern was present with lobular morphology, only 3.4% (2/58) were diagnosed as ILC in the original reports, indicating diagnostic challenges in morphology and immunohistochemistry discordance. Similarly, in group 5, which had ductal morphology with loss or aberrant E-cadherin expression, the initial diagnosis rate of IBC-NST was 33.3% (9/27), reflecting the complexities in interpreting discordant cases.

Conclusions: In real-world practice, diagnosing ILC often heavily depends on E-cadherin results. This study emphasizes the need for diagnostic clarification in cases with discordance between morphology and E-cadherin patterns.