Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37428725›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Classifying invasive lobular carcinoma as special type breast cancer may be reducing its treatment success: A comparison of survival among invasive lobular carcinoma, invasive ductal carcinoma, and no-lobular special type breast cancer.

Rusen Cosar, Necdet Sut, Sernaz Topaloglu, Ebru Tastekin, Dilek Nurlu, Talar Ozler, Eylül Şenödeyici, Melisa Dedeli, Mert Chousein, Irfan Cicin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rusen CosarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-7953-8887
Necdet SutDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Sernaz TopalogluDepartment of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Ebru TastekinDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Dilek NurluDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Talar OzlerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Eylül ŞenödeyiciFaculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Melisa DedeliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Mert ChouseinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Irfan CicinDepartment of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
Trakya University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe literature contains different information about the prognosis of invasive lobular carcinoma of breast cancer (BC). We aimed to address the inconsistency by comparatively examining the clinical features and prognosis of invasive lobular carcinoma patients in our university and to report our experience by dividing our patients into various subgroups. PATIENTS AND

methodsRecords of patients with BC admitted to Trakya University School of Medicine Department of Oncology between July 1999 and December 2021 were reviewed. The patients were divided into three groups (No-Special Type BC, Invasive Lobular Special Type BC, No-Lobular Special Type BC). Patient characteristics, treatment methods and oncological results are presented. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical significance of survival among the selected variables was compared by using the log-rank test.

resultsThe patients in our study consisted of 2142 female and 15 male BC patients. There were 1814 patients with No-Special Type BC, 193 patients with Invasive Lobular Special Type BC, and 150 patients with No-Lobular Special Type BC. The duration of disease-free survival (DFS) was 226.5 months for the No-Special Type BC group, 216.7 months for the No-Lobular Special Type BC group, and 197.2 months for the Invasive Lobular Special Type BC group, whereas the duration of overall survival (OS) was 233.2 months for the No-Special Type BC group, 227.9 for the No-Lobular Special Type BC group, and 209.8 for the Invasive Lobular Special Type BC group. The duration of both DFS and OS was the lowest in the Invasive Lobular Special Type BC group. Multivariate factors that were significant risk factors for OS were Invasive Lobular Special Type BC histopathology (p = .045), T stage, N stage, stage, skin infiltration, positive surgical margins, high histological grade, and mitotic index. Modified radical mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and use of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors for more than 5 years were significant protective factors for overall survival.

conclusionThe histopathological subgroup with the worst prognosis in our study was Invasive Lobular Special Type BC. Duration of DFS and OS were significantly shorter in Invasive Lobular Special Type BC than No-Lobular Special Type BC group. The classification of Invasive Lobular BC under the title of Special Type BC should be reconsidered and a more accurate treatment and follow-up process may be required.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBreast Neoplasms, MaleCarcinoma, DuctalCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularFemaleHumansMaleMastectomyPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37428725
PMCPMC10332623
OpenAlexW4383759844

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.