Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40705266›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2025

Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Surgical Outcomes and Conversion to Node-Negativity in Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer: Analysis of Molecularly High-Risk Tumors by Histologic Subtype on the I-SPY2 Clinical Trial.

Rita A Mukhtar, Katrina Dimitroff, Christina Yau, A Jo Chien, Eileen P Connolly, Marissa Howard-McNatt, Roshni Rao, Velle Ladores, Mehra Golshan, Candice A Sauder and 26 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

36 authors.

Rita A MukhtarUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. Rita.Mukhtar@ucsf.edu.
Katrina DimitroffUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Christina YauUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
A Jo ChienUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Eileen P ConnollyColumbia University, New York, USA.
Marissa Howard-McNattWake Forest, Winston-Salem, USA.
Roshni RaoColumbia University, New York, USA.
Velle LadoresUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Mehra GolshanYale, New Haven, USA.
Candice A SauderYale, New Haven, USA.
Kamran AhmedH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA.
Rachael LancasterUniversity of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Jana FoxMontefiore Medical Center, Bronx, USA.
Lily GutnikUniversity of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
M Catherine LeeH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA.
Julia TchouUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Nicolas PrionasUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Cletus A ArcieroEmory, Atlanta, USA.
Chantal ReynaLoyola University, Chicago, USA.
Henry KuererMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Kayla SwitallaUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Neil TaunkUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Todd M TuttleUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Meena S MoranYale, New Haven, USA.
Lauren M PostlewaitEmory, Atlanta, USA.
Jane PerlmutterGemini Group, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Angela DeMicheleUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Douglas YeeUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Nola HyltonUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
W Fraser SymmansMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Hope S RugoUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Rebecca ShatskyUC San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Claudine IsaacsGeorgetown University, Washington, USA.
Laura J EssermanUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Laura Van't VeerUC San Francisco, 1825 4th st, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Judy C BougheyMayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.

Funding

The I SPY 2.2 TRIAL: Evolving to Imaging and Molecular Biomarker Response Directed Adaptive Sequential Treatment to Optimize Breast Cancer OutcomesP01CA210961 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LAURA J ESSERMAN, Nola M. Hylton-Watson · 2017 to 2026
$22.9M
Identifying responders to chemotherapy in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: development of a multivariable clinical prediction toolK08CA256047 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MUKHTAR, RITA · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA256047NCI NIH HHS K08CA256047NCI NIH HHS P01 CA210961NCI NIH HHS P01CA210961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) has lower response rates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) than invasive ductal carcinoma. While ILC often has low-risk biology, there is a high-risk subset within this heterogeneous tumor type. We compared surgical treatment and response rates by histology in I-SPY2, a multicenter NAC trial.

methodsWe evaluated 1329 patients with stage II-III breast cancer and high-risk 70-gene assay. Patients with classic, pleomorphic, or mixed lobular/ductal histology were included in the lobular cohort. We evaluated rates of mastectomy, positive margins, axillary dissection, and conversion from clinical node-positive (cN+) to pathologic node-negative (ypN-) status after NAC.

resultsOverall, 124 patients (9.3%) had lobular histology, with 69% being hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-). There was no difference in mastectomy rate (57.2% for lobular vs. 55.8% for non-lobular). The ILC cohort had more positive margins after lumpectomy than the non-ILC cohort (21.2% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.023). Within cN0 cases, axillary dissection was significantly more common among the lobular cases (24.1% vs. 14.0%; p = 0.039). Conversion from cN+ to ypN0 did not differ statistically between lobular and non-lobular cases (40.9% vs. 51.2%; p = 0.11). The nodal conversion rate among cN+lobular tumors was 30.6% in HR+/HER2-, 72.7% in HER2+, and 66.7% in triple-negative cases.

conclusionsThese data demonstrate the challenges of surgical management for ILC but hold promise that molecular classification can improve treatment selection. While high genomic risk is generally less common among ILC, our findings suggest that gene expression assays in cN+ILC patients can identify a subset who may benefit from NAC.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, LobularLymph NodesMastectomyNeoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorChemotherapy, AdjuvantErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymphatic MetastasisBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBreast cancerLobular carcinomaNeoadjuvant chemotherapyNodal response

Identifiers

PMID40705266
PMCPMC12494636

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.