Delving into female breast cancer: Distinct disease-specific survival outcomes between invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas revealed by propensity score matching.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0300116
Wu Zhang, Yuquan Huang, Ye Zhou, Jiaojiao Xue, Shan Gao, Lin Kang, Jian Shi, Tao Zhou, Yalong Duan, Sihan Guo, Qingxia Li
{"title":"Delving into female breast cancer: Distinct disease-specific survival outcomes between invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas revealed by propensity score matching.","authors":"Wu Zhang, Yuquan Huang, Ye Zhou, Jiaojiao Xue, Shan Gao, Lin Kang, Jian Shi, Tao Zhou, Yalong Duan, Sihan Guo, Qingxia Li","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0300116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The difference in prognosis between invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) is still controversial in the academic community. Resolving this controversy can help to more accurately determine patients' prognosis, provide further personalized treatment, alleviate unnecessary psychological burden for some patients, and provide direction for further fundamental research.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the SEER Research Plus Data 8 Registries, Nov 2021 sub (1978-2019), including female breast cancer patients diagnosed with ILC or IDC between 2010 and 2015. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed, and key covariates affecting prognosis were selected. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to match patients, and balance tests were conducted to evaluate covariate distribution. Disease-specific survival (DSS) differences between the matched IDC and ILC groups were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following PSM, the covariate differences between the IDC and ILC groups were significantly reduced. The survival analysis revealed a significantly better prognosis for the IDC group than the ILC group (Log-rank test p < 0.001), with a 28.0% increased risk observed in the ILC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides evidence supporting the existence of significant differences in prognosis between IDC and ILC patients after rigorous matching. The IDC group displayed a significantly better prognosis than the ILC group. Notably, these findings have implications for personalized treatment in clinical practice and contribute to the ongoing academic debate on survival differences between IDC and ILC. However, further research is needed to investigate the biological mechanisms, gene expression, and signaling pathway disparities between IDC and ILC, aiming to provide more targeted guidance for clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0300116"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The difference in prognosis between invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) is still controversial in the academic community. Resolving this controversy can help to more accurately determine patients' prognosis, provide further personalized treatment, alleviate unnecessary psychological burden for some patients, and provide direction for further fundamental research.

Patients and methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the SEER Research Plus Data 8 Registries, Nov 2021 sub (1978-2019), including female breast cancer patients diagnosed with ILC or IDC between 2010 and 2015. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed, and key covariates affecting prognosis were selected. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to match patients, and balance tests were conducted to evaluate covariate distribution. Disease-specific survival (DSS) differences between the matched IDC and ILC groups were compared.

Results: Following PSM, the covariate differences between the IDC and ILC groups were significantly reduced. The survival analysis revealed a significantly better prognosis for the IDC group than the ILC group (Log-rank test p < 0.001), with a 28.0% increased risk observed in the ILC group.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence supporting the existence of significant differences in prognosis between IDC and ILC patients after rigorous matching. The IDC group displayed a significantly better prognosis than the ILC group. Notably, these findings have implications for personalized treatment in clinical practice and contribute to the ongoing academic debate on survival differences between IDC and ILC. However, further research is needed to investigate the biological mechanisms, gene expression, and signaling pathway disparities between IDC and ILC, aiming to provide more targeted guidance for clinical decision-making.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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