User login
Key clinical point: Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast showed worse prognostic outcomes than patients with ILC who also had lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).
Major finding: Patients with ILC + LCIS vs ILC only had better median distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS; 16.8 vs 10.1 years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P < .0001) and overall survival (OS; 18.9 vs 13.7 years; HR 0.62; P < .0001) rates, with the absence of LCIS being associated with poor prognosis in terms of both DRFS (adjusted HR 1.78; P < .0001) and OS (adjusted HR 1.60; P < .0001) outcomes.
Study details: This observational, population-based investigation included the data of 4217 patients with stages I-III ILC (of whom 45% had co-existing LCIS) from the MD Anderson breast cancer prospectively collected electronic database.
Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant. Five authors declared receiving consulting fees or research support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Mouabbi JA et al. Absence of lobular carcinoma in situ is a poor prognostic marker in invasive lobular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2023;191:113250 (Jul 21). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113250
Key clinical point: Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast showed worse prognostic outcomes than patients with ILC who also had lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).
Major finding: Patients with ILC + LCIS vs ILC only had better median distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS; 16.8 vs 10.1 years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P < .0001) and overall survival (OS; 18.9 vs 13.7 years; HR 0.62; P < .0001) rates, with the absence of LCIS being associated with poor prognosis in terms of both DRFS (adjusted HR 1.78; P < .0001) and OS (adjusted HR 1.60; P < .0001) outcomes.
Study details: This observational, population-based investigation included the data of 4217 patients with stages I-III ILC (of whom 45% had co-existing LCIS) from the MD Anderson breast cancer prospectively collected electronic database.
Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant. Five authors declared receiving consulting fees or research support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Mouabbi JA et al. Absence of lobular carcinoma in situ is a poor prognostic marker in invasive lobular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2023;191:113250 (Jul 21). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113250
Key clinical point: Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast showed worse prognostic outcomes than patients with ILC who also had lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).
Major finding: Patients with ILC + LCIS vs ILC only had better median distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS; 16.8 vs 10.1 years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; P < .0001) and overall survival (OS; 18.9 vs 13.7 years; HR 0.62; P < .0001) rates, with the absence of LCIS being associated with poor prognosis in terms of both DRFS (adjusted HR 1.78; P < .0001) and OS (adjusted HR 1.60; P < .0001) outcomes.
Study details: This observational, population-based investigation included the data of 4217 patients with stages I-III ILC (of whom 45% had co-existing LCIS) from the MD Anderson breast cancer prospectively collected electronic database.
Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant. Five authors declared receiving consulting fees or research support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Mouabbi JA et al. Absence of lobular carcinoma in situ is a poor prognostic marker in invasive lobular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2023;191:113250 (Jul 21). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113250