Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022
Biomarker profile of invasive lobular carcinoma: pleomorphic versus classic subtypes, clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis analyses.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Yu, Luo Xiulan, Chen Min, Yang Libo, Lei Ting, Pu Tianjie, Wei Bing, Bu Hong, Zhang Zhang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinicopathologic features and prognosis of pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (P-ILC) and classic ILC (C-ILC) according to the biomarker profile.
METHODS: A total of 667 C-ILCs and 133 P-ILCs between 2011 and 2021 were included. Clinicopathologic features and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) status were evaluated. P-ILCs were divided into subtypes based on ER/PR and HER2 expression. The overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients were compared among matched P-ILCs, C-ILCs, and invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs) with biomarker subtypes.
RESULTS: Compared to C-ILCs, P-ILCs had greater tumor sizes and stages, fewer ER-positive, more HER2-positive, triple negative (TN), and Ki-67 > 20% tumors (P < 0.05). P-ILCs were subdivided into ER+ (63.1%), HER2+ (21.1%) and TN (15.8%). ER+ P-ILCs were mainly showed trabecular and solid growth patterns. Apocrine and solid features were more strongly associated with HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. The prognosis of each biomarker group (ER+, HER2+ and TN) differed by subtype. The P-ILC biomarker subtypes had worse prognosis than the same subtypes in the IDC group, while there was no difference between the P-ILC and the C-ILC counterparts. Solid variants of P-ILC had the worst prognosis. Bone was the most common metastatic site in ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs. HER2+ P-ILCs tended to metastasize to the brain and liver. DFS of HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs were worse than that of ER+ P-ILCs. Lacking lobular carcinoma in situ and sTILs ≤ 10% were associated with worse survival of ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. For HER2+ P-ILCs, Ki-67 > 20% and sTILs ≤ 10% were significant factors for lower DFS.
CONCLUSION: P-ILCs is an aggressive subtype of ILCs. Analyzing the prognostic factors of P-ILCs with heterogeneous morphological and biomarker characteristics is helpful for creating an individualized treatment.
METHODS: A total of 667 C-ILCs and 133 P-ILCs between 2011 and 2021 were included. Clinicopathologic features and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) status were evaluated. P-ILCs were divided into subtypes based on ER/PR and HER2 expression. The overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients were compared among matched P-ILCs, C-ILCs, and invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs) with biomarker subtypes.
RESULTS: Compared to C-ILCs, P-ILCs had greater tumor sizes and stages, fewer ER-positive, more HER2-positive, triple negative (TN), and Ki-67 > 20% tumors (P < 0.05). P-ILCs were subdivided into ER+ (63.1%), HER2+ (21.1%) and TN (15.8%). ER+ P-ILCs were mainly showed trabecular and solid growth patterns. Apocrine and solid features were more strongly associated with HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. The prognosis of each biomarker group (ER+, HER2+ and TN) differed by subtype. The P-ILC biomarker subtypes had worse prognosis than the same subtypes in the IDC group, while there was no difference between the P-ILC and the C-ILC counterparts. Solid variants of P-ILC had the worst prognosis. Bone was the most common metastatic site in ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs. HER2+ P-ILCs tended to metastasize to the brain and liver. DFS of HER2+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs were worse than that of ER+ P-ILCs. Lacking lobular carcinoma in situ and sTILs ≤ 10% were associated with worse survival of ER+ P-ILCs and TN-P-ILCs, respectively. For HER2+ P-ILCs, Ki-67 > 20% and sTILs ≤ 10% were significant factors for lower DFS.
CONCLUSION: P-ILCs is an aggressive subtype of ILCs. Analyzing the prognostic factors of P-ILCs with heterogeneous morphological and biomarker characteristics is helpful for creating an individualized treatment.