Advertisement

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma May Not Improve Rates of Breast Conservation

  • Judy C. Boughey
  • Jamie Wagner
  • Betsy J. Garrett
  • Lori Harker
  • Lavinia P. Middleton
  • Gildy V. Babiera
  • Funda Meric-Bernstam
  • Anthony Lucci
  • Kelly K. Hunt
  • Isabelle Bedrosian
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) experience a lower pathological complete response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. This study was intended to evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ILC on breast-conserving surgery (BCS) rates.

Methods

Two-hundred eighty-four consecutive patients with pure ILC treated between May 1998 and September 2006 were reviewed. Surgical procedures and long-term outcomes were compared between patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those receiving surgery first.

Results

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 84 patients; 200 patients underwent surgery first. The mean tumor size in the neoadjuvant group (4.9 cm) was significantly larger than in patients who underwent surgery first (2.5 cm, p < 0.0001). In the neoadjuvant group, clinical complete response was seen in 10% and partial response in 59%. Overall BCS rates were 17% in the neoadjuvant group compared with 43% in the surgery-first group (p < 0.0001). When controlled for initial tumor size, there was no difference (all p > 0.05) between the groups in terms of (1) the proportion of patients who underwent an initial attempt at BCS, (2) rate of failure of BCS or (3) the proportion of patients undergoing BCS as their final procedure. With a mean follow-up of 47 months, local recurrence (LR) rates were similar between the two groups (1.2% versus 0.5%, p = 0.5).

Conclusion

The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not increase the rates of breast conservation in patients with pure ILC.

Keywords

Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Breast Conservation Clinical Tumor Size Molecular Breast Imaging 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ping Liu for statistical analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    The World Organization. The World Health Organization Histological Typing of Breast Tumors-Second Edition. Am J Clin Pathol. 1982;78:806–16.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975;55:231–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cocquyt V, Van Belle S. Lobular carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular cancer of the breast. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:55–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2672–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newman LA, Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, et al. A prospective trial of preoperative chemotherapy in resectable breast cancer: predictors of breast-conservation therapy feasibility. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:228–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tubiana-Hulin M, Stevens D, Lasry S, et al. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lobular and ductal breast carcinomas: a retrospective study on 860 patients from one institution. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1228–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cristofanilli M, Gonzalez-Angulo A, Sneige N, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:41–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cocquyt VF, Blondeel PN, Depypere HT, et al. Different responses to preoperative chemotherapy for invasive lobular and invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:361–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mathieu MC, Rouzier R, Llombart-Cussac A, et al. The poor responsiveness of infiltrating lobular breast carcinomas to neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be explained by their biological profile. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:342–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wenzel C, Bartsch R, Hussian D, et al. Invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma of breast differ in response following neoadjuvant therapy with epidoxorubicin and docetaxel+G-CSF. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;104:109–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mann RM, Hoogeveen YL, Blickman JG, et al. MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a review of existing literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;107:1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Fisher ER, et al. Significance of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence after lumpectomy. Lancet. 1991;338:327–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Voogd AC, Nielsen M, Peterse JL, et al. Differences in risk factors for local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy for stage I and II breast cancer: pooled results of two large European randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1688–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagner J, Boughey JC, Garrett B, et al. Margin assessment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive lobular cancer. Am J Surg. 2009. (Accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW, et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1037–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL, et al. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:460–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy C. Boughey
    • 1
  • Jamie Wagner
    • 1
  • Betsy J. Garrett
    • 1
  • Lori Harker
    • 1
  • Lavinia P. Middleton
    • 2
  • Gildy V. Babiera
    • 1
  • Funda Meric-Bernstam
    • 1
  • Anthony Lucci
    • 1
  • Kelly K. Hunt
    • 1
  • Isabelle Bedrosian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations