Mitotic score and pleomorphic histology in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: impact on disease-free survival.

PURPOSE: Pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) has long been thought to have worse outcomes than classic ILC and is therefore often treated with chemotherapy. However, recent data question the utility of the pleomorphic designation, as the poor outcomes seen may be related to other associated high-risk features. Importantly, mitotic count may better define a subset of ILC with high risk of recurrence. We sought to determine the impact of pleomorphic histology versus mitotic count on disease-free survival (DFS) in pure ILC. Additionally, we evaluated whether pleomorphic histology was associated with receipt of chemotherapy when adjusting for other factors. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 475 patients with stage I-III pure ILC. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression for multivariate analyses. Pleomorphic histology was confirmed by central pathology review. RESULTS: In a multivariate model, pleomorphic histology was not associated with reduced DFS. Only mitotic score, receptor subtype, and pathologic stage were independently and significantly associated with DFS. Patients with pleomorphic ILC were significantly more likely to receive chemotherapy than patients with classic ILC (adjusted odds ratio 2.96, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The pleomorphic designation in ILC does not have clinical utility and should not be used to determine therapy. Rather, mitotic count identified clear prognostic groups in this cohort of pure ILC.

Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: how special are they for systemic therapy decisions?

The WHO classification of breast tumors distinguishes, besides invasive breast cancer 'of no special type' (former invasive ductal carcinoma, representing 60-70% of all breast cancers), 30 special types, of which invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the most common (5-15%). We review the literature on (i) the specificity and heterogeneity of ILC biology as documented by various analytical techniques, including the results of molecular testing for risk of recurrence; (ii) the impact of lobular histology on prediction of prognosis and effect of systemic therapies in patients. Though it is generally admitted that ILC has a better prognosis than IDC, is endocrine responsive, and responds poorly to chemotherapy, currently available data do not unanimously support these assumptions. This review demonstrates some lack of specific data and a need for improving clinical research design to allow oncologists to make informed systemic therapy decisions in patients with ILC. Importantly, future studies should compare various endpoints in ILC breast cancer patients among the group of hormonosensitive breast cancer.