ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Long-term outcomes of invasive lobular carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma in HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer: a focus on luminal subtypes.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) differs from invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in clinicopathological characteristics, treatment responsiveness, and recurrence patterns. However, its long-term prognostic significance, particularly in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative disease, remains incompletely understood.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 2,423 women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer who underwent partial mastectomy or total mastectomy between January 2013 and December 2017, including 2,262 patients with IDC and 161 with ILC. The primary endpoint was invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS), and overall survival (OS) was evaluated as a secondary endpoint. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare outcomes between ILC and IDC. Subtype-specific analyses were restricted to HR-positive/HER2-negative luminal A-like and luminal B-like tumors defined according to the St. Gallen 2013 criteria. Exploratory analyses assessed the associations of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy with outcomes.
resultsCompared with IDC, ILC was more frequently ER-positive/HER2-negative, had lower Ki-67, and presented with more advanced pathological tumor burden. Five-year iBCFS was 84.9% in ILC and 91.5% in IDC (log-rank p = 0.053). In the adjusted overall model, ILC tended to be associated with poorer iBCFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-2.19; p = 0.096). In subtype-specific analyses, ILC was not significantly associated with iBCFS in luminal A-like disease (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67-1.98; p = 0.619), whereas the adverse prognostic association of ILC was more apparent in luminal B-like disease (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03-2.09; p = 0.033). The histology-by-subtype interaction was not statistically significant. In luminal disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not independently associated with improved outcomes after adjustment for pretreatment clinical stage, whereas adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better iBCFS in the combined luminal ILC group.
conclusionsILC tended to be associated with poorer long-term invasive outcomes than IDC, particularly in HR-positive/HER2-negative disease. The adverse prognostic association of ILC was more apparent in luminal B-like tumors than in luminal A-like tumors. These findings support a risk-adapted approach to ILC that integrates histology, tumor burden, and proliferative activity. Further validation in larger prospective studies is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828641What 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.