Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35922548›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2022

Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer.

Maxim De Schepper, Anne Vincent-Salomon, Matthias Christgen, Karen Van Baelen, François Richard, Hitoshi Tsuda, Sasagu Kurozumi, Maria Jose Brito, Gabor Cserni, Stuart Schnitt and 23 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The Canadian Breast Cancer Symposium 2025: Meeting Report.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Article
  10. 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
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Recent advances and updated highlights in breast cancer pathologic diagnosis: a narrative review.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2025
    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

33 authors.

Maxim De Schepper *Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Anne Vincent-Salomon *Diagnostic and Theranostic Medicine Division, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5754-5771
Matthias Christgen *Institute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0891-7839
Karen Van BaelenLaboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
François RichardLaboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4353-3619
Hitoshi TsudaDepartment of Basic Pathology, National Defense Medical College Hospital, Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan.
Sasagu KurozumiDepartment of Breast Surgery, International University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Chiba, Japan.
Maria Jose BritoBreast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Gabor CserniDepartment of Pathology, Bács-Kiskun County Teaching Hospital, Kecskemét, Hungary & Department of Pathology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-1344-7744
Stuart SchnittBrigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3608-7828
Denis LarsimontDepartment of Pathology, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Janina KulkaDepartment of Pathology, Forensic and Insurance Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Pest, Hungary.
Pedro Luis FernandezHospital German Trias i Pujol, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Paula Rodríguez-MartínezHospital German Trias i Pujol, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Ana Aula OlivarUniversity Hospital Doctor Josep Trueta, Girona, Spain.
Cristina MelendezUniversity Hospital Doctor Josep Trueta, Girona, Spain.
Mieke Van BockstalDepartment of Pathology, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc Bruxelles, Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4498-928X
Aniko KovacsDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Zsuzsanna VargaDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2855-983X
Jelle WesselingDivisions of Molecular Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8940-2676
Rohit BhargavaDepartment of Pathology, UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1225-8418
Pia BoströmDepartment of Pathology, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Camille FranchetInstitut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse - Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Blessing ZambukoDepartment of Pathology, Sir Ketumile Masire Teaching Hospital, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.ORCID 0000-0002-4673-1111
Gustavo MatuteClínica Universitaria Bolivariana, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Sophie MuellerInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Anca BerghianDepartment of Biopathology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France.
Emad RakhaDepartment of Histopathology, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, City Hospital Campus Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK.
Paul J van DiestDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0658-2745
Steffi OesterreichWomen's Cancer Research Center, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2537-6923
Patrick W B DerksenDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0732-7762
Giuseppe FlorisDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Leuven, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. giuseppe.floris@uzleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0003-2391-5425
Christine DesmedtLaboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. christine.desmedt@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-5223-5579

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) represents the second most common subtype of breast cancer (BC), accounting for up to 15% of all invasive BC. Loss of cell adhesion due to functional inactivation of E-cadherin is the hallmark of ILC. Although the current world health organization (WHO) classification for diagnosing ILC requires the recognition of the dispersed or linear non-cohesive growth pattern, it is not mandatory to demonstrate E-cadherin loss by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Recent results of central pathology review of two large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated relative overdiagnosis of ILC, as only ~60% of the locally diagnosed ILCs were confirmed by central pathology. To understand the possible underlying reasons of this discrepancy, we undertook a worldwide survey on the current practice of diagnosing BC as ILC. A survey was drafted by a panel of pathologists and researchers from the European lobular breast cancer consortium (ELBCC) using the online tool SurveyMonkey®. Various parameters such as indications for IHC staining, IHC clones, and IHC staining procedures were questioned. Finally, systematic reporting of non-classical ILC variants were also interrogated. This survey was sent out to pathologists worldwide and circulated from December 14, 2020 until July, 1 2021. The results demonstrate that approximately half of the institutions use E-cadherin expression loss by IHC as an ancillary test to diagnose ILC and that there is a great variability in immunostaining protocols. This might cause different staining results and discordant interpretations. As ILC-specific therapeutic and diagnostic avenues are currently explored in the context of clinical trials, it is of importance to improve standardization of histopathologic diagnosis of ILC diagnosis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma in SituCarcinoma, LobularCadherinsFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCadherins

Identifiers

PMID35922548
PMCPMC9708574

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.