Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29344954›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of pathology2018

Mixed ductal-lobular carcinomas: evidence for progression from ductal to lobular morphology.

Amy E McCart Reed, Jamie R Kutasovic, Katia Nones, Jodi M Saunus, Leonard Da Silva, Felicity Newell, Stephen Kazakoff, Lewis Melville, Janani Jayanthan, Ana Cristina Vargas and 13 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Pitfalls in the Histological Diagnosis of Morphologic Variants of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Amy E McCart ReedCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5387-2791
Jamie R KutasovicCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Katia NonesQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Jodi M SaunusCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4604-4709
Leonard Da SilvaCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Felicity NewellQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Stephen KazakoffQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Lewis MelvillePathology Queensland, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Janani JayanthanCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Ana Cristina VargasCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Lynne E ReidCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Jonathan BeesleyQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Xiao Qing ChenQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Anne-Marie PatchQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
David CloustonTissuPath, Mt Waverley, Melbourne, Australia.
Alan PorterThe Wesley Breast Clinic, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Elizabeth EvansThe Wesley Breast Clinic, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
John V PearsonQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Georgia Chenevix-TrenchQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Margaret C CummingsCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Nicola WaddellQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Sunil R LakhaniCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Peter T SimpsonCentre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUWesley Hospital · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUTissuPath · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mixed ductal-lobular carcinomas (MDLs) show both ductal and lobular morphology, and constitute an archetypal example of intratumoural morphological heterogeneity. The mechanisms underlying the coexistence of these different morphological entities are poorly understood, although theories include that these components either represent 'collision' of independent tumours or evolve from a common ancestor. We performed comprehensive clinicopathological analysis of a cohort of 82 MDLs, and found that: (1) MDLs more frequently coexist with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) than with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS); (2) the E-cadherin-catenin complex was normal in the ductal component in 77.6% of tumours; and (3) in the lobular component, E-cadherin was almost always aberrantly located in the cytoplasm, in contrast to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), where E-cadherin is typically absent. Comparative genomic hybridization and multiregion whole exome sequencing of four representative cases revealed that all morphologically distinct components within an individual case were clonally related. The mutations identified varied between cases; those associated with a common clonal ancestry included BRCA2, TBX3, and TP53, whereas those associated with clonal divergence included CDH1 and ESR1. Together, these data support a model in which separate morphological components of MDLs arise from a common ancestor, and lobular morphology can arise via a ductal pathway of tumour progression. In MDLs that present with LCIS and DCIS, the clonal divergence probably occurs early, and is frequently associated with complete loss of E-cadherin expression, as in ILC, whereas, in the majority of MDLs, which present with DCIS but not LCIS, direct clonal divergence from the ductal to the lobular phenotype occurs late in tumour evolution, and is associated with aberrant expression of E-cadherin. The mechanisms driving the phenotypic change may involve E-cadherin-catenin complex deregulation, but are yet to be fully elucidated, as there is significant intertumoural heterogeneity, and each case may have a unique molecular mechanism. © 2018 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, CDBiomarkers, TumorBreast Carcinoma In SituBreast NeoplasmsCadherinsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingComparative Genomic HybridizationDisease ProgressionDNA Mutational AnalysisExome SequencingFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansAntigens, CDBiomarkers, TumorCadherinsCDH1 protein, humanbreast cancerclonalityE-cadherininvasive lobular carcinomamixed ductal-lobular carcinomamorphologypathologytumour heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID29344954
PMCPMC5873281
OpenAlexW2793538361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.