Nationwide study compares treatment response and survival in invasive lobular carcinoma versus breast carcinoma of no special type, highlighting survival implications.
BACKGROUND: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), the second most common breast cancer subtype, differs from invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (BC-NST) in biology, presentation, and treatment response. Evidence on its prognostic impact remains inconsistent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our nationwide, population-based study of stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed in Belgium (2008-2014) compared characteristics, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) between ILC and BC-NST. RESULTS: Of 51 815 eligible patients, 7593 (14.6%) had ILC. Compared with patients with BC-NST, patients with ILC were older (median 62 versus 59 years), more often T3-T4 (16.5% versus 7.4%) or N3 (5.4% versus 2.9%), and less frequently grade 3 (19.3% versus 40.7%; P < 0.0001). ILC was associated with worse unadjusted OS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.18], with 15-year OS of 62.1% (versus 65.9% for BC-NST), but no difference after adjustment [adjusted HR (aHR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.02]. In subgroup analyses, inferior OS persisted in patients with N3 disease (aHR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.55) and in those treated with neoadjuvant therapy (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06-1.52). Flexible parametric models demonstrated a time-dependent effect, with lower early mortality but higher late mortality in ILC. Patients with ILC had lower odds of response to neoadjuvant therapy overall (odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.27-0.43), consistent across hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative and triple-negative subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent survival disadvantage of ILC is largely explained by clinicopathologic features, with no independent association with OS. However, ILC demonstrates a time-dependent survival pattern, with lower early but higher late mortality, and worse outcomes in patients with extensive nodal involvement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: