Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40617531›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2025

Pitfalls in the Histological Diagnosis of Morphologic Variants of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast.

Giuseppe Floris, Lounes Djerroudi, Gitte Zels, Maxim De Schepper, François Richard, Rigleta Brahimaj, Patrick W B Derksen, Matthias Christgen, Sunil R Lakhani, Paul J Van Diest and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Transcriptomic Insights into Lobular Breast Cancer Biology and Patient Outcomes: Analysis of the MINDACT Clinical Trial.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

15 authors.

Giuseppe FlorisDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Laboratory for translational Cell and Tissue Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: giuseppe.floris@uzleuven.be.
Lounes DjerroudiDepartment of Diagnostic and Theranostic Medicine, Institut Curie, Institut des Cancers des Femmes, Université Paris Sciences Lettres, Paris, France; Department of Pathology, Institut Curie, Institut des Cancers des Femmes, Université Paris Sciences Lettres, Paris, France.
Gitte ZelsDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Laboratory for translational Cell and Tissue Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Maxim De SchepperDepartment of Pathology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
François RichardLaboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Rigleta BrahimajDepartment of Diagnostic and Theranostic Medicine, Institut Curie, Institut des Cancers des Femmes, Université Paris Sciences Lettres, Paris, France; Department of Pathology, Institut Curie, Institut des Cancers des Femmes, Université Paris Sciences Lettres, Paris, France.
Patrick W B DerksenDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Matthias ChristgenInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Sunil R LakhaniUniversity of Queensland and Pathology Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Paul J Van DiestDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Edi BrogiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York.
Christine DesmedtLaboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Stuart J SchnittDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anne Vincent-SalomonDepartment of Diagnostic and Theranostic Medicine, Institut Curie, Institut des Cancers des Femmes, Université Paris Sciences Lettres, Paris, France; Department of Pathology, Institut Curie, Institut des Cancers des Femmes, Université Paris Sciences Lettres, Paris, France.
European Lobular Breast Cancer Consortium

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most frequent histological type of breast cancer and the most frequent special type. Disruption of cell-to-cell adhesion, caused most often by E-cadherin loss of function, results in the distinctive histomorphology of ILC, which is characterized by single threads of monotonous, dyscohesive neoplastic epithelial cells infiltrating the breast parenchyma with little or no stromal reaction, referred to as classic ILC. In the past 4 decades, ILC variants that differ from classic ILC with regard to architectural, cytological, and/or nuclear features have been described. The recognition and correct characterization of ILC, including its variant forms, is essential to avoid misdiagnosis and its possible treatment implications. Some ILC variants may be associated with more aggressive clinical behavior compared with classic ILC, independent of standard predictive and prognostic parameters. Additionally, the distinctive biological and clinical features of ILC are increasingly being investigated as therapeutic targets in ILC-tailored clinical trials. In this manuscript, we have undertaken an in-depth review of the current state of knowledge about ILC variants. Evidence gained from molecular analysis of ILC and its microenvironment suggests that ILC variants are biologically distinct from classic ILC. However, this conclusion is undermined by the imprecise histopathological identification of ILC variants. In the absence of standardized and simplified criteria for the diagnosis of ILC, underrecognition of ILC variants may translate into missed opportunities for tailored treatment of ILC patients. Therefore, we propose steps toward the development of a roadmap that will ultimately lead to a more reproducible classification of ILC variants and improve our knowledge of these challenging tumors.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, LobularBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansBiomarkers, Tumorbeta-cateninclassic invasive lobular carcinomaE-cadherininvasive lobular carcinomanon-classic invasive lobular carcinomap120

Identifiers

PMID40617531
PMCPMC12311960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.