Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33520704›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2020

Lobular Breast Cancer: A Review.

Natalie Wilson, Alastair Ironside, Anna Diana, Olga Oikonomidou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prospective study onBritish journal of cancer · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

4 authors.

Natalie WilsonCancer Research UK, Edinburgh Centre, MRC Institute Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Alastair IronsideEdinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Department of Pathology, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Anna DianaDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, School of Medicine, "Luigi Vanvitelli" University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
Olga OikonomidouCancer Research UK, Edinburgh Centre, MRC Institute Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive lobular carcinoma accounts for 5%-15% of all invasive breast cancers, with a marked increase in incidence rates over the past two decades. Distinctive biological hallmarks of invasive lobular carcinoma include the loss of cell adhesion molecule E-cadherin leading to cells with a discohesive morphology, proliferating into single-file strands and estrogen receptor positivity. These key molecular features can make diagnosis difficult, as invasive lobular carcinoma is challenging to detect both physically and with current standard imaging. Treatment of invasive lobular carcinoma strongly favors endocrine therapy due to low chemosensitivity and lower rates of pathological response as a result. This review will summarize the distinct biological and molecular features of invasive lobular carcinoma, focusing on the diagnostic challenges faced and the subsequent surgical and medical management strategies. Prospective therapeutic options will also be explored, highlighting how furthering our understanding of the unique biology of lobular breast carcinoma is essential in guiding and informing the treatment of patients in the future.

Indexed as

diagnosisimaginglobular breast cancermolecular featurestreatment

Identifiers

PMID33520704
PMCPMC7844138

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.