ArticleESMO open2026
Long-term outcomes and treatment response in early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma: insights from a nationwide population-based study.
Article in ESMO open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), the second most common breast cancer subtype, differs from invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (BC-NST) in biology, presentation, and treatment response. Evidence on its prognostic impact remains inconsistent. PATIENTS AND
methodsOur nationwide, population-based study of stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed in Belgium (2008-2014) compared characteristics, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) between ILC and BC-NST.
resultsOf 51 815 eligible patients, 7593 (14.6%) had ILC. Compared with patients with BC-NST, patients with ILC were older (median 62 versus 59 years), more often T3-T4 (16.5% versus 7.4%) or N3 (5.4% versus 2.9%), and less frequently grade 3 (19.3% versus 40.7%; P < 0.0001). ILC was associated with worse unadjusted OS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.18], with 15-year OS of 62.1% (versus 65.9% for BC-NST), but no difference after adjustment [adjusted HR (aHR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.02]. In subgroup analyses, inferior OS persisted in patients with N3 disease (aHR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.55) and in those treated with neoadjuvant therapy (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06-1.52). Flexible parametric models demonstrated a time-dependent effect, with lower early mortality but higher late mortality in ILC. Patients with ILC had lower odds of response to neoadjuvant therapy overall (odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.27-0.43), consistent across hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative and triple-negative subtypes.
conclusionsThe apparent survival disadvantage of ILC is largely explained by clinicopathologic features, with no independent association with OS. However, ILC demonstrates a time-dependent survival pattern, with lower early but higher late mortality, and worse outcomes in patients with extensive nodal involvement.
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.