1,720,971 research outputs found
Replication Data for: Classifying Invasive Lobular Carcinoma as Special Type Breast Cancer May Be Reducing Its Treatment Success: A comparison of Survival Among Invasive Lobular Carcinoma
No full textORIGINAL RESEARCH
Cosar et al
Classifying Invasive Lobular Carcinoma as Special Type Breast Cancer May Be Reducing Its Treatment Success: A comparison of Survival Among Invasive Lobular Carcinoma
Rusen Cosar1, Necdet Sut2 , Sernaz Topaloglu3 , Ebru Tastekin4 , Dilek Nurlu1 , Talar Ozler1 , Eylül Şenödeyici5 , Melisa Dedeli1 , Mert Chousein1, Irfan Cicin3
1Trakya University Faculty of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology, Edirne, Turkey
2 Trakya University Faculty of Medicine Department of Biostatistics, Edirne, Turkey
3Trakya University Faculty of Medicine Department of Medical Oncology, Edirne, Turkey
4Trakya University Faculty of Medicine Department of Pathology, Edirne, Turkey
5Trakya University Faculty of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey
Correspondence: Ruşen Coşar
Trakya University School of Medicine,
Department of Radiation Oncology, Edirne, Turkey
Tel: +902842361074
Email: [email protected]
Disclosure
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. The authors declared that this study has received no financial support. “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Voluntary consent form was given to patients or official guardians of deceased patients to use file information. File information was used after the forms were signed by the patient or official guardians of deceased patients.
Abstract:
Purpose: The literature contains differentiating information regarding the prognosis of invasive lobular carcinoma. We aimed to address the inconsistency by comparatively examining the clinical features and prognosis of invasive lobular carcinoma patients in our university and to report our experience by dividing our patients into various subgroups.
Patients and methods: Records of patients with breast cancer admitted to Trakya University School of Medicine Department of Oncology between July 1999 and December 2021 were reviewed. The patients were divided into three groups (No-Special Type Breast Cancer, Invasive Lobular Special Type BC, No-Lobular Special BC). Patient characteristics, treatment methods and oncological results are presented. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Statistical significance of survival among the selected variables was compared by using the log-rank test.
Results: The patients in our study consisted of 2142 female and 15 male breast cancer patients. There were 1814 patients with Non-Special Type Breast Carcinoma, 193 patients with Lobular Special Type Breast Carcinoma, and 150 patients with Non-Lobular Special Type Breast Carcinoma. The duration of disease free survival (DFS) was 226.5 months for the No-Special Type group, 216.7 months for the No-Lobular Special Type group, and 197.2 months for the Lobular Special Type group, whereas the duration of overall survival (OS) was 233.2 months for the Non-Special Type group, 227.9 for the No-Lobular Special Type group, and 209.8 for the Lobular Special Type group. The duration of both DFS and OS was the lowest in the Lobular Special Type group. Multivariate factors that were significant risk factors for OS were Lobular Special Type histopathology (p=.045), T stage, N stage, stage, skin infiltration, positive surgical margins, high histological grade and mitotic index. Modified radical mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and use of Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors for more than 5 years were significant protective factors for overall survival.
Conclusion: The histopathological subgroup with the worst prognosis in our study was Lobular Special Type. Duration of DFS and OS were significantly shorter in Lobular Special Type than No-Lobular Special Type group. Whether Lobular Special Type should be classified as a Special Type Breast Tumor should be reconsidered, and a more accurate treatment and follow-up process may be required.
Keywords: No-Special Type Breast Cancer, Special Type Breast Cancer, Invasive Lobular Cancer, Non-Lobular Special Type Breast Cancer, Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer
Introduction
Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the most common special histological type of breast cancer (BC). While ILC accounts for 5% of invasive carcinomas, its incidence has increased up to 10-14% with the developments in diagnostic methods and novel discoveries. However, ILC remains less common in Asian populations (2–6%)1-6. As the incidence of ILC is significantly less than invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), the most common histopathological subtype of breast cancer, its clinical and prognostic features and biological behavior become clearer as more studies are published7-15.
ILC is within the Special Type BC group, along with tubular, mucinous, papillary, micropapillary, medullary, metaplastic, and apocrine histopathological subtypes, whereas IDC is among the No-Special Type BC group composed of highly heterogeneous subtypes10. ILC stands out among the other histopathological subtypes in the Special Type BC group with its distinct clinical course, prognosis and biological features. While the survival rate of ILC was better than or similar to that of IDC in series with less than 6 years of follow-up, the prognosis of ILC was found to be worse than IDC in series with longer follow-up. However, the St Gallen International Expert Consensus guidelines and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend that ILC should be treated with the same treatment paradigms as IDC, despite their many different features. Therefore, systemic treatment decisions for ILC and IDC are often similar (10). Highlighting ILC as the subgroup with better prognosis in the series published in the past years may have prevented the treatment decision from being more aggressive, resulting in worse survival than IDC in the long term6-9, 11-14.
Treating the “Special” ILC similarly to the “No-Special” IDC may cause the clinicians to overlook important details regarding this patient group13. However, larger tumor diameter, more lymph node metastases, high hormone receptor positivity, loss of E-cadherin and the potential of atypical metastasis are among the currently known distinct features of ILC3, 4. Unlike IDC, ILC shows different growth patterns and biological features, rather than masses that can easily be diagnosed with palpation or mammography. Additionally, an increased rate of multiple metastases, low rates of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and frequent positive surgical margins are among the features that make ILC more remarkable14,15.
Different information in the literature regarding prognosis has led us to comparatively examine the clinical features and prognosis of ILC patients in our series. We aimed to determine our own patient characteristics and report our treatment experience of ILC by dividing our patient series into various subgroups.
Material and methods
Patient characteristics
Patients with breast cancer who applied to Trakya University School of Medicine Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Oncology between July 1999 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Trakya University Medical Faculty Hospital (TUTF-BAEK 2022/170) for the use of patient information in the study. The consent form was submitted to the local ethics committee (Trakya University Faculty of Medicine Dean's Non-Invasive Scientific Research Ethics Committee, Edirne, Turkey). Informed consent forms were prepared in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In the study, permission was obtained from the patients, and if the patient died, from the legal guardians of the patients, by signing a written consent form, to use the information in the registry files containing the patient information.
Medical records and pathological reports were retrospectively converted into SPSS data to evaluate the clinicopathological features. After excluding 190 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ from a total of 2347 breast cancer patients, the remaining 2157 patients with invasive carcinoma were included in the study. The patients in our series consisted of 2142 female and 15 male breast cancer patients. No-Special Type BC (Completely invasive ductal carcinoma, IDC) and Special Type BC were divided as invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), mixed type (IDC+ILC), epidermoid carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, papillary carcinoma, tubular carcinoma, adenoid cystic carcinoma, secretory carcinoma, apocrine carcinoma, and metaplastic carcinoma. Later, the patients were divided into three groups: Non-Special Type BC (IDC) (n=1814), Lobular Special Type (ILC, ILC+IDC mixed type) (n=193), and Non-Lobular Special Type BC (n=150). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) analyzes of the patient groups were performed. Patient characteristics were tabulated as ratios and numbers, and comparisons were made between groups. Finally, univariate and multivariate analyzes of factors affecting DFS and OS were performed.
Clinicopathological Features
Pathological and clinical staging in our series was performed according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual16. IDC, Non-Lobular Special Type, ILC, and histopathological diagnoses were evaluated using hematoxylin-eosin staining by pathologists specializing in breast cancer at Trakya University School of Medicine Department of Pathology. Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) positivity were determined by immunohistochemical staining. Hormone receptor positivity was defined as an ER score greater than or equal to 3 on the Allred Score (17). HER2 positive was defined as a Herceptest score of 3+ or a Herceptest score of 2+ followed by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) positive18. Luminal type was defined as ER positive and HER2 negative. Histological grading was done using the Nottingham histological grading system. Pathological staging for extensive intraductal carcinoma (EIC), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and perineural invasion (PNI) was done according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual17.
Statistical Analysis
Numerical results are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, and categorical results are shown as n (%). Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate the survival curves. Log-rank test was used to compare the statistical significance of survival among the selected variables. Hazard ratios were estimated using univariate Cox regression analysis. Multivariate Cox regression analysis with backward elimination method was used to estimate hazard ratios and identify independent prognostic factors. All p values are two-sided, and p<0.05 indicates statistical significance. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).
Results
Out of 2157 patients, 1814 patients had No-Special Type BC and 342 patients had Special Type BC. No statistically significant difference between DFS and OS was found (Table 1, Figure 1a, 1b).
In the second step, we divided our patient series into three groups as No-Special Type BC (n=1814), ILC Special Type BC(n=193), No-Lobular Special Type BC (n=150). The rate of ILC patients in our series was 8.9%. 4.1% (n=8) of ILCs contained pleomorphic components. When all three groups were compared, the differences between the durations of both DFS and OS were statistically significant. The duration of DFS was 226.5 months for the IDC group, 216.7 months for the No-Lobular Special Type group, and 197.2 months for the ILC group, whereas the duration of OS was 233.2 months for the IDC group, 227.9 for the No-Lobular Special Type group, and 209.8 for the ILC group. The duration of both DFS and OS was the lowest in the ILC group (Tables 2, Figure 2a, 2b).
The histopathological subgroup distribution, which consisted of ER, PR, Ki67 and CerbB2, was 80.98% Luminal AB, 11.41% Triple Negative, 7.1% HER2 enriched for IDC, while Non-Lobular Special Type was divided as 68.67% Luminal AB, 24.67% Triple negative, 6.67% HER2 enriched, and ILC was divided as 94.30% Luminal AB, 4.66% Triple negative, 1.04% HER2 enriched. The subgroup dominating the histopathological subgroup of ILC was Luminal A-B with a rate of 94.30% (Fig. 3a, 3b, 3c).
Patient characteristics of all three groups (IDC, Non-Lobular Special Type, ILC) were analyzed (Table 3). Gender, age, menstruation, family history, histological type, tumor quadrant, T stage, N stage, stage, metastasis site, breast surgery type (modified radical mastectomy/ breast conserving surgery), axillary surgery type (axillary curettage/sentinel lymph node sampling), skin infiltration, surgical margin ( in patients with positive surgical resection margin, re-excision was performed first and the surgical resection margin was positive despite this), tumour grade, mitotic index (MI), ER, PR, Ki67 (<15, ≥15), HER2, EIC, LVI, PNI, subgroup (Luminal A, Luminal B, Triple Negative, HER2 enriched), presence of anti-hormonal therapy, duration of Tamoxifen (TAM) and Aromatase Inhibitor (AI) use, use of Herceptin, and type of chemotherapy (CT) [ No CT, AC+TXT (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel), FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide)-FEC (floro-urasil, epirubisin, cyclophosphamide), -TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide), FAC-FEC+TXT, Ribociclib + Palbociclib, CMF (Cyclophosphamide Methotrexate Fluorouracil)] were analyzed as numbers and rates. Fisher exact test was used to compare the patient characteristics of the three groups. In the same table was made for the statistically significant patient characteristics of the three groups (Table 3).
The distribution of patient characteristics of the 3 histopathological subgroups are shown in Table 3. Of the 193 patients in the Lobular Special Type BC group in our series, 138 were pure ILC, and 55 were IDC+ILC BC patients. All patients in the ILC group were women, mostly over 50 years of age and in the postmenopausal period. There was no significant difference in the presence of family history and bilateral arrangement among the 3 groups. While the rate of MRM in breast surgery was 45.5% (n=982), only 7 of the patients had skin-sparing mastectomy. Periareolar and multifocal localizations were slightly more common in the ILC group. A pairwise comparison of patient characteristics of all three groups were done.
ILC/IDC patient characteristics
T stage, PNI positivity, ER and PR positivity rates were higher in ILC, while Ki67, CerbB2 positivity, MI (mitotic index) and histological grade rates were higher in IDC. Subgroup, rate of anti-hormonal treatment use, duration of TAM and AI use, CT type, and metastasis location were the features that showed significant difference between ILC and IDC. Breast and axillary surgery type and surgical margin positivity were not different between the two histopathological groups (Table 3). Although not statistically significant, MRM was detected in 47.9% of the IDC and 51.6% of the ILC. While 83.2% of breast cancer patients with IDC histopathology received chemotherapy, this rate was 78.2% in the ILC histopathological subgroup, and this difference was calculated differently at the level of statistical significance.
ILC/No-Lobular Special Type patient characteristics
N stage, stage, surgery type (breast and axillary surgery type), PNI, LVI, subgroup, ER and PR positivity, HG, duration of anti-hormonal therapy, duration of TAM and AI use, RT type, CT type, recurrence/metastasis rates and mortality rate were significantly higher in the ILC group (Table 3). While the MRM rate was 51.6% more preferred in ILC in surgical treatment, BCS was preferred with 66.2% in No-Lobular Special Type BC, and this difference was statistically significant. In No-Lobular Special Type BC, the rate of administration of chemotherapy was 71.3%, the histopathological subgroup in which the least chemotherapy was preferred.
IDC/ No-Lobular Special Type patient characteristics
The quadrant where the tumor is located, T stage, N stage, stage, surgical type (breast and axillar surgery), PNI, LVI, EIC, subgroup, ER and PR positivity, Ki67 rate, CerbB2 positivity, HG, presence of anti-hormonal therapy, RT type, CT type, metastasis location, recurrence/metastasis rate and death rate were found to be significantly higher in the IDC group. While MRM was preferred 47.9% in IDC histopathology, 33.8% preferred in No-Lobular Special Type BC histopathology. In the axillary surgery option, 25% in SLND, IDC, 30.4% in No-Lobular Special Type BC, and 75% and 69.6% in AK, respectively (Table 3).
Cox regression test was used to examine the histopathological subgroups and patient characteristics with these three different clinical and pathological features. Multivariate factors that were significant risk factors for DFS in our study were age, being in the postmenopausal period, multicentric location, T stage, stage, HER2 positivity and MI, while duration of TAM and AI use, and use of Herceptin were the significant protective factors for DFS (Tables 4, 5). Multivariate factors that were significant risk factors for OS were ILC histopathology (p=.045), T stage, N stage, stage, skin infiltration, positive surgical margins, high histological grade and mitotic index. Modified radical mastectomy (MRM), chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT) and use of TAM and AI for more than 5 years were significant protective factors for OS (Tables 6, 7)
Discussion
The classification of special types of breast cancer recommended by the World Health Organization is beginning to take a wider place in literature because of their distinct biological behavior and clinical characteristics compared to no-special types of breast cancer15. Additionally, subtypes in the special breast cancer group may behave very differently from each other. ILC is considered notable for its distinctive biological behavior and unusual organ metastases and is included in Special Type BC because of studies showing it has a better prognosis than IDC6, 20-24. However, studies with longer periods of follow-up show that ILC has worse prognosis than IDC6, 14, 25. Survival data, which differ from each other and change over the years, call into question the status of ILC in the Special Type BC group. A separate classification may be necessary for subtypes in this group.
When the patients in our study were divided into two subgroups (No-Special Type BC, Special Type BC), no significant difference was observed regarding DFS and OS. When the data was later reanalyzed by removing ILC from the Special Type BC and treating it as a third, distinct subgroup, ILC was found to have the lowest duration of DFS and OS. There was a significant difference between the duration of DFS and OS of IDC and No-Lobular Special Type BC. The duration of DFS and OS showed significant difference in ILC and No-Lobular Special Type BC as well. Although IDC and ILC did not have a statistically significant difference regarding DFS and OS, the difference was still remarkable. ILC and IDC have similar durations of DFS in the first 6 years. After 6 years however, the survival curve for ILC was lower than of IDC, and the difference becomes more pronounced after the 17th year. OS for ILC showed a lower course than IDC after 14 years. Although the difference between the duration of OS in ILC and IDC were not statistically significant, ILC significantly increased the risk of death by 1.457(1.009-2.104) times, (p=.045) in the Cox regression risk analysis.
Special Type-BC has a lower incidence, which may have resulted in limited knowledge of the clinical and biological features of the histopathological subtypes within the group. However, recent studies with longer follow-up periods have reported a lower survival rate, especially for ILC, contrary to current information14, 26. The increase of incidence and low survival rates may force the clinicians to reconsider treatment options and the frequency of follow-ups.
A study by Toikkanen et al7 showed ILC had better prognosis than IDC despite 30 years of follow-up, which precludes interpretation by the length of follow-up alone. As a result, when ILC is analyzed yearly, an increase in its incidence is seen. Earlier studies1, 2, 4, 7 show ILC to have lower grade, mitotic activity, T stage, N stage, stage, and ER positivity with a higher rate of bilateral arrangement, while more recent studies14, 26 report higher histologic grade and mitotic activity, and diagnosis at more advanced stages. Our study shows that ILC is associated with larger tumor size, older age, more advanced T and N stage, lower grade, higher ER and PR positivity, and lower HER2 expression, while the rate of bilateral arrangement was not higher. This may suggest that the biological behavior of ILC has become more aggressive over the years. It should be noted that the lack of difference between IDC and ILC in terms of surgical margin positivity, breast surgery and axillary surgery type in our series is evidence that it does not show a worse prognosis due to residual disease or incomplete treatment. In the multivariate analysis for DFS, neither breast nor axillary surgery type increased the risk of events. In OS, the risk increased 1.5 times at the statistical significance level (p=0.008) in patients who underwent MRM. In the axillary surgery type, the risk increased by 1.4 in patients who underwent AC which was close to statistical significance (p=0.099). In this case, it is proof that more radical surgical interventions are preferred in patients with high risk. This proves that incomplete surgery or l
Our response to the letter to the editor for the article Comparison of survival between unilateral and bilateral breast cancers using propensity score matching: a retrospective single-center analysis
No full textThey expressed their concerns about making comments regarding the sample size in our study. The preferred propensity score analysis was the statistical method chosen because it is the analysis after balancing the small number of patients with the much larger number of patients in this situation in terms of both number and prognostic factors. In fact, the reference to future studies on this subject has been made for new retrospective series rather than prospective randomized studies. We wanted to draw the attention of researchers to propensity score analysis and to show that future retrospective series studies can ask questions with clearer answers using propensity score analysis
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
