ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Comparison of long-term outcome between clinically high risk lobular versus ductal breast cancer: a propensity score matched study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term Outcomes of Slowly Proliferating Luminal A-like Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Versus Invasive Carcinoma of No Special Type.Journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Lobular breast cancer and prognosis: what should we tell patients?Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Worse survival despite indolent features for triple-negative invasive lobular carcinoma: a Swedish nationwide registry-based study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Invasive lobular breast carcinoma variants; clinicopathological features and patient outcomes.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Pre-treatment [18F]FDG PET/CT biomarkers for the prediction of antibody-drug conjugates efficacy in metastatic breast cancer.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: metastatic patterns and treatment modalities-a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Deciphering the Clinical Behaviour of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast Defines an Aggressive Subtype.Cancers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Abemaciclib is currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, lymph node (LN)-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (BC). In a real-world setting the clinicopathologic features of patients potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib remain to be defined. There are conflicting data regarding the biological behavior and long-term outcomes across invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In our study we retrospectively assessed the real-world data and long-term outcome of selected high-risk features ILC compared to IDC, according to the MonarchE trial inclusion criteria. Methods: We identified 15,071 patients who got surgery at the European Institute of Oncology for a first primary, non-metastatic, HR-positive, HER2-negative BC from 2000 to 2008. 11,981 (79.5%) patients had an IDC and 1524 (10.1%) an ILC. The remaining 1566 patients (10.4%) had either combined ductal and lobular breast cancer or another histological breast cancer subtype. According to the eligibility criteria of the MonarchE study, we identified two high-risk groups, based on high number of positive lymph nodes, large tumor size, or a high cellular proliferation as measured by tumor grade or biomarkers. Patients were matched by propensity score. Findings: A total of 2872 (21.3%) patients were selected as clinically high-risk, including 361/1524 ILC (23.7%) and 2511/11,981 IDC (21%). 322 high-risk ILC were matched with similar high-risk IDC. The median follow-up was 13.2 years for survival. In the matched set, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (log-rank P = 0.09) and overall survival (OS) (log-rank P = 0.48) were not statistically significantly different between the two histological groups. For IDC patients, the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates (95% CI) were 77.7% (72.9-82.2) and 57.3% (51.7-63.1) respectively, compared to the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates of ILC patients that were 75.5% (70.6-80.2) and 50.7% (45.0-56.6). The 5-year and 10-year distant relapse free survival (DRFS) rates were 80% (75.3-84.2) and 65.3% (59.8-70.7) in IDC cohort, compared to the 5-year and the 10-year DRFS rates of 78.7% (74.0-83.1) and 61.5% (55.9-67.1) in the ILC cohort. Such data match the recent outcomes efficacy results of the MonarchE control arm. More patients in the ILC (n = 17) than in the IDC group (n = 10) developed axillary recurrence. At multivariable analysis, stratified for specific clinical features, age <35 years, pT2-3, axillary involvement with more than 10 positive axillary nodes were found to be predictors of unfavorable IDFS and OS in the overall matched high-risk population. Interpretation: Findings from this matched cohort study reported similar IDFS and DRFS rates for high risk HR positive early BC when compared to the control arm overall IDFS and DRFS rates reported from the MonarchE trial. Our study demonstrated rates of concordant long-term outcome status beyond histologic subtype. These data support an escalation strategy for these two different histological entities when diagnosed with high-risk features. In our dataset approximately 21% rate of high-risk HR positive early BC patients are potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib treatment. Funding: Umberto Veronesi Foundation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.