Treatment and survival differences between patients with invasive lobular carcinoma versus invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Jesus D Anampa, Shuwen Lin, Samilia Obeng-Gyasi, Xiaonan Xue
{"title":"Treatment and survival differences between patients with invasive lobular carcinoma versus invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.","authors":"Jesus D Anampa, Shuwen Lin, Samilia Obeng-Gyasi, Xiaonan Xue","doi":"10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-1250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) exhibits differences in molecular and biological characteristics compared to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). We aim to compare breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) between patients with ILC and IDC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1992-2020). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with treatment modalities. We examined BCSS at different time points using a cox regression model with time-dependent coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>343,397 patients with IDC and 39,859 patients with ILC were included. Patients with ILC had more advanced stage disease (stage II, 35% vs. 34%; stage III, 16% vs.11%), and higher rate of hormone receptor-positive disease (97% vs. 81%). Compared to patients with IDC, patients with ILC had better BCSS in the first five years (Hazard ratio [HR]=0.71, p <0.001), but worse BCSS in later years (HR=1.30, p<0.001 in year 6-10; HR=1.75, p<0.001 in year 11-15; HR=2.17, p<0.001 in year 16-20).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with ILC survive better in early years but worse in later years compared to patients with IDC. Future studies are required to identify patients with ILC who are at risk of late recurrence or mortality.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>The results of this study add to the currently conflicting literature of survival of ILC and demonstrate the importance of evaluating novel therapeutic approaches and extended therapy for patients with ILC.</p>","PeriodicalId":9458,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-1250","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) exhibits differences in molecular and biological characteristics compared to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). We aim to compare breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) between patients with ILC and IDC.

Methods: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1992-2020). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with treatment modalities. We examined BCSS at different time points using a cox regression model with time-dependent coefficient.

Results: 343,397 patients with IDC and 39,859 patients with ILC were included. Patients with ILC had more advanced stage disease (stage II, 35% vs. 34%; stage III, 16% vs.11%), and higher rate of hormone receptor-positive disease (97% vs. 81%). Compared to patients with IDC, patients with ILC had better BCSS in the first five years (Hazard ratio [HR]=0.71, p <0.001), but worse BCSS in later years (HR=1.30, p<0.001 in year 6-10; HR=1.75, p<0.001 in year 11-15; HR=2.17, p<0.001 in year 16-20).

Conclusions: Patients with ILC survive better in early years but worse in later years compared to patients with IDC. Future studies are required to identify patients with ILC who are at risk of late recurrence or mortality.

Impact: The results of this study add to the currently conflicting literature of survival of ILC and demonstrate the importance of evaluating novel therapeutic approaches and extended therapy for patients with ILC.

浸润性乳腺小叶癌与浸润性乳腺导管癌患者的治疗和生存率差异。
背景:浸润性小叶癌(ILC)与浸润性导管癌(IDC)相比,在分子和生物学特征方面存在差异。我们旨在比较ILC和IDC患者的乳腺癌特异性生存率(BCSS):我们使用了监测、流行病学和最终结果数据库(1992-2020 年)中的数据。我们进行了逻辑回归分析,以确定与治疗方式相关的因素。我们使用具有时间依赖性系数的考克斯回归模型研究了不同时间点的 BCSS:共纳入 343,397 例 IDC 患者和 39,859 例 ILC 患者。ILC患者的疾病分期更晚(II期,35%对34%;III期,16%对11%),激素受体阳性率更高(97%对81%)。与IDC患者相比,ILC患者在前五年的BCSS较好(危险比[HR]=0.71,P 结论:ILC患者在早期存活率较高:与IDC患者相比,ILC患者早年存活率更高,但晚年存活率更低。未来的研究需要确定哪些 ILC 患者有晚期复发或死亡的风险:本研究结果补充了目前关于ILC存活率的相互矛盾的文献,并证明了评估新型治疗方法和延长ILC患者治疗时间的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.60%
发文量
538
审稿时长
1.6 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention publishes original peer-reviewed, population-based research on cancer etiology, prevention, surveillance, and survivorship. The following topics are of special interest: descriptive, analytical, and molecular epidemiology; biomarkers including assay development, validation, and application; chemoprevention and other types of prevention research in the context of descriptive and observational studies; the role of behavioral factors in cancer etiology and prevention; survivorship studies; risk factors; implementation science and cancer care delivery; and the science of cancer health disparities. Besides welcoming manuscripts that address individual subjects in any of the relevant disciplines, CEBP editors encourage the submission of manuscripts with a transdisciplinary approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信