
==== Front
ESMO Open
ESMO Open
ESMO Open
2059-7029
Elsevier

S2059-7029(24)01484-4
10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103714
103714
Original Research
Characteristics and clinical outcomes of breast cancer in young BRCA carriers according to tumor histology
Agostinetto E. elisa.agostinetto@hubruxelles.be
1∗
Bruzzone M. 2
Hamy A.-S. 3
Kim H.J. 4
Chiodi C. 5
Bernstein-Molho R. 6
Linn S. 7
Pogoda K. 8
Carrasco E. 9
Derouane F. 10
Bajpai J. 11
Nader-Marta G. 1
Lopetegui-Lia N. 12
Partridge A.H. 13
Cortesi L. 14
Rousset-Jablonski C. 151617
Giugliano F. 1819
Renaud T. 20
Ferrari A. 2122
Paluch-Shimon S. 2324
Fruscio R. 2526
Cui W. 2728
Wong S.M. 2930
Vernieri C. 3132
Ruddy K.J. 33
Dieci M.V. 3435
Matikas A. 3637
Rozenblit M. 38
Aguilar y Mendez D. 39
De Marchis L. 4041
Borea R. 4243
Puglisi F. 4445
Pistelli M. 46
Kufel-Grabowska J. 47
Di Rocco R. 48
Mariamidze E. 4249
Atzori F. 50
Kourie H.R. 51
Popovic L. 52
de Azambuja E. 1
Blondeaux E. 2†
Lambertini M. 4243†
1 Academic Trials Promoting Team, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.), Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Brussels, Belgium
2 U.O. Epidemiologia Clinica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
3 Department of Medical Oncology, Universite Paris Cité, Institut Curie, Paris, France
4 Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
5 Cancer Survivorship Program – Molecular Predictors and New Targets in Oncology, INSERM Unit 981, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
6 Susanne Levy Gertner Oncogenetics Unit, The Danek Gertner Institute of Human Genetics, Chaim Sheba Medical Center Affiliated to Tel Aviv University, Tel Hashomer, Israel
7 Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
8 Department of Breast Cancer and Reconstructive Surgery, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
9 Hereditary Cancer Genetics Unit, Medical Oncology Department, Vall d´Hebron University Hospital, Vall d´Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
10 Department of General Medical Oncology and Multidisciplinary Breast Center, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
11 Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India
12 Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland
13 Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA
14 Department of Oncology and Haematology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, Modena, Italy
15 Department of Surgery, Leon Berard Cancer Center, Lyon
16 Hôpital Femme-Mère-Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Bron
17 Unité INSERM U1290 RESHAPE, Lyon
18 Division of New Drugs and Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan
19 Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
20 Cancer Genetics Unit, Bergonie Institute, Bordeaux, France
21 Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) Unit and General Surgery 3 – Senology, Surgical Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia
22 University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
23 Breast Oncology Unit, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem
24 Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
25 UO Gynecology, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo, Monza
26 Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
27 Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria
28 Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia
29 Stroll Cancer Prevention Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal
30 McGill University Medical School, Montreal, Canada
31 Medical Oncology Department, Breast Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan
32 Oncology and Hematology-Oncology Department, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
33 Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, USA
34 Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, Università di Padova, Padua
35 Oncologia 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy
36 Department of Oncology/Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm
37 Breast Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
38 Yale University, Medical Oncology, New Haven, USA
39 Tecnologico de Monterrey, Breast Cancer Center, Hospital Zambrano Hellion - TecSalud, Monterrey, Mexico
40 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, ‘La Sapienza’ University of Rome, Rome
41 Oncology Unit, Umberto 1 University Hospital, Rome
42 Medical Oncology Department, U.O.C. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa
43 Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DIMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa
44 Department of Medical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Aviano
45 Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine
46 Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
47 Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland
48 Department of Medical Oncology, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est - Misericordia Hospital, Grosseto, Italy
49 Department of Oncology and Hematology, Todua Clinic, Tbilisi, Georgia
50 Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
51 Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
52 Oncology Institute of Vojvodina – Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
∗ Correspondence to: Dr Elisa Agostinetto, Institut Jules Bordet and l’Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.), Rue Meylemeersch, 90 (Rez Haut Nord), B-1070 Anderlecht, Belgium. Tel: + 32-(0)-2-541-3099 elisa.agostinetto@hubruxelles.be
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

16 9 2024
10 2024
16 9 2024
9 10 103714© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Background

Young women with breast cancer (BC) have an increased chance of carrying germline BRCA pathogenic variants (PVs). Limited data exist on the prognostic impact of tumor histology (i.e. ductal versus lobular) in hereditary breast cancer.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective cohort study included women aged ≤40 years with early-stage breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2020 and known to carry germline PVs in BRCA1/2. Histology was locally assessed in each center. The Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to assess disease-free survival and overall survival.

Results

Of 4628 patients included from 78 centers worldwide, 3969 (86%) had pure ductal, 135 (3%) pure lobular, and 524 (11%) other histologies. Compared with ductal tumors, lobular tumors were more often grade 1/2 (57.7% versus 22.1%), stage III (29.6% versus 18.5%), and luminal A-like (42.2% versus 12.2%). Lobular tumors were more often associated with BRCA2 PVs (71.1% BRCA2), while ductal tumors were more often associated with BRCA1 PVs (65.7% BRCA1). Patients with lobular tumors more often had mastectomy (68.9% versus 58.3%), and less often received chemotherapy (83.7% versus 92.9%). With a median follow-up of 7.8 years, no significant differences were observed in disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.37) or overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.50) between patients with ductal versus lobular tumors. No significant survival differences were observed according to specific BRCA gene, breast cancer subtype, or body mass index.

Conclusions

In this large global cohort of young BRCA carriers with breast cancer, the incidence of pure lobular histology was low and associated with higher disease stage at diagnosis, luminal-like disease and BRCA2 PVs. Histology did not appear to impact prognosis.

Highlights

• We analyzed 4628 young BRCA carriers with early breast cancer.

• The incidence of pure lobular histology was low (i.e. 3%).

• Patients with lobular cancers had higher disease stage at diagnosis, more luminal-like disease, and more BRCA2 PVs.

• Histology did not appear to impact prognosis.

Key words

BRCA
breast cancer
histology
lobular
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Breast cancers can be categorized into different histological subtypes based on cell morphology, growth, and architectural patterns.1 The most common histology accounting for ∼75%-80% of all invasive breast cancers is invasive carcinoma of no special type, commonly known as invasive ductal carcinoma.2 The remaining 20%-25% of breast cancers consist of special histologies, with lobular breast cancer being the most prevalent among them.2 Compared with ductal tumors, lobular cancers exhibit differences in clinical presentation,2 long-term outcomes,3 site of disease progression,4 histopathological characteristics,5 and biological features.6 Current international guidelines provide some specific indications for selected breast cancer of special histologies (e.g. adenoid cystic, secretory, medullary), but not specifically on lobular tumors, in part due to limited research focusing on histologic distinctions.7

In particular, the prognostic impact of different histologies in breast cancers arising in young patients with a germline BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (PV) has not been previously extensively studied. Limited data exist on the prevalence of lobular tumors among young BRCA carriers,8,9 as well as on the clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of this specific subset of patients.

The BRCA BCY Collaboration (NCT03673306) is the largest international cohort study including young women with breast cancer carrying germline BRCA PVs.10 With its large real-world cohort of young BRCA carriers with breast cancer, this study represents a unique opportunity to explore the impact of the different histologies on the distribution of clinicopathological characteristics and on patients’ clinical outcomes.

Methods

Study design and procedures

This international retrospective observational cohort study, conducted across 78 centers worldwide, included women aged ≤40 years who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2020 and tested positive for germline BRCA1/2 PVs. Criteria for inclusion/exclusion in the study were previously detailed.10 Information collected included country of treatment, year and age at diagnosis, menopausal status, type of BRCA1/2 PV, primary tumor size, lymph node involvement at diagnosis, histology, grade, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and hormone receptor status as well as administered treatments [type of surgery, type of chemotherapy (if administered), type of endocrine therapy (if administered)]. Histology, grade, HER2, and hormone receptor status were locally assessed and no central review was carried out.

Breast cancer subtypes were centrally defined following immunohistochemistry and/or in situ hybridization-based criteria (according to the current guidelines)11,12 as follows13: (i) luminal A-like, as estrogen receptor (ER)- and progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive, HER2-negative tumors of grade 1 or 2; (ii) luminal B-like, as either ER-negative/PgR-positive or ER-positive/PgR-negative, HER2-negative tumors, or ER- and/or PgR-positive, HER2-negative tumors of grade 3; (iii) HER2-positive as tumors with positive HER2 expression (regardless of other characteristics); (iv) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) as ER- and PgR-negative, HER2-negative tumors (any grade).

BRCA testing was locally carried out and re-classifications over time were eventually applied by each site as per internal guidelines.

The study was approved by the ethical review committee of the Institut Jules Bordet (Brussels, Belgium) as coordinating center. Whenever required, ethics approval was obtained in compliance with local regulations from independent ethical review committees or institutional review boards of participating centers.

Study objectives

The primary objective of this analysis was to investigate the impact of the different histologies of breast cancer on the clinical outcomes of young BRCA carriers (pure ductal versus pure lobular).

The impact of histologies on prognosis was investigated by comparing the following time-to-event endpoints, defined as per STEEP criteria14: disease-free survival (DFS), defined by the occurrence of one of the following invasive events: local recurrence, distant metastases, contralateral or ipsilateral breast tumor, second primary malignancy, or death from any cause; overall survival (OS), defined by the occurrence of death from any cause.

Secondary objectives included: describing baseline patient and tumor characteristics according to the different histologies; investigating the impact of the different histologies on the clinical outcomes of young BRCA carriers according to the type of specific BRCA gene (BRCA 1 versus BRCA 2), breast cancer subtype (luminal A-like, luminal B-like, HER2-positive, TNBC), and body mass index (BMI) (<25 versus ≥25).

Statistical analysis

Categorical and continuous variables of ductal versus lobular tumor were compared using the chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test as appropriate.

The Kaplan–Meier method was used to compute survival probabilities. The log-rank test was used to compare survival probabilities. Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Adjustment in survival models was made for age, specific BRCA gene, year of diagnosis, tumor grade, tumor size, nodal status, tumor subtype, breast surgery, and use of chemotherapy. Cox models were used to assess the impact of different histologies on the clinical outcomes (i.e. DFS and OS) according to the type of specific BRCA gene (BRCA1 versus BRCA2), breast cancer subtype (luminal A-like, luminal B-like, HER2-positive, TNBC), and BMI (<25 versus ≥25). The presence of interaction between histology and type of specific BRCA gene (1 versus 2), breast cancer subtypes, or BMI were also assessed. For survival analysis, patients whose tumors had mixed histologies (i.e. mixed ductal and lobular) were excluded from the comparative analysis of ductal versus lobular tumors.

Results

Population characteristics and treatment received

A total of 4628 patients were included, of whom 3969 (86%) had pure ductal, 135 (3%) pure lobular, and 524 (11%) other histologies, respectively (Supplementary Figure S1, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103714). Supplementary Table S1, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103714 reports the baseline characteristics of patients with tumors of pure ductal, pure lobular or other histology.

Comparisons of baseline clinicopathological characteristics between patients with pure ductal and pure lobular tumors are shown in Table 1. Compared with ductal carcinoma, lobular tumors were more often of grade 1/2 (57.7% versus 22.1%, P < 0.001), of stage III (29.6% versus 18.5%, P = 0.002), and of luminal A-like subtype (42.2% versus 12.2%, P < 0.001). Lobular tumors were more often associated with BRCA2 PVs (71.1% had BRCA2 PVs), while ductal tumors were more often associated with BRCA1 PVs (65.7% had BRCA1 PVs). Patients with lobular tumors more often underwent mastectomy (68.9% versus 58.3%, P = 0.011), and less often chemotherapy (83.7% versus 92.9%, P < 0.001).Table 1 Baseline clinicopathological characteristics

	Pure ductal BC n (%)
n = 3969	Pure lobular BC n (%)
n = 135	P value	
Region			0.002	
 North America	319 (8.0)	11 (8.1)		
 South-Center America	130 (3.3)	5 (3.7)		
 Asia + Israel	727 (18.3)	7 (5.2)		
 Oceania	140 (3.5)	4 (3.0)		
 North Europe	620 (15.6)	28 (20.7)		
 South Europe	1793 (45.2)	65 (48.1)		
 East Europe	240 (6.0)	15 (11.1)		
Year of diagnosis			0.053	
 2000-2004	498 (12.5)	25 (18.5)		
 2005-2008	636 (16.0)	28 (20.7)		
 2009-2012	867 (21.8)	19 (14.1)		
 2013-2016	966 (24.3)	31 (23.0)		
 2017-2020	1002 (25.2)	32 (23.7)		
Age at diagnosis, median (IQR) years	35 (31 to 37)	36 (33 to 39)	0.018	
Menopausal status at diagnosis			0.068	
 Premenopausal	3774 (95.1)	124 (91.8)		
 Peri-menopausal	13 (0.3)	1 (0.7)		
 Post-menopausal	91 (2.3)	7 (5.2)		
 Missing	91 (2.3)	3 (2.2)		
BRCA status			<0.001	
 BRCA1	2606 (65.7)	38 (28.1)		
 BRCA2	1335 (33.6)	96 (71.1)		
 BRCA1 and BRCA2	23 (0.6)	1 (0.7)		
 BRCA pathogenic variant (unknown if 1 or 2)	5 (0.1)	0 (0.0)		
Time from diagnosis to BRCA testing, median (IQR) months	5.3 (0.9-25.3)	8.1 (1.5-44.6)	0.081	
Missing date of BRCA testing	500	13		
Body mass index			0.741	
 <18.5	207 (5.2)	9 (6.7)		
 18.5-24.9	2132 (53.7)	72 (53.3)		
 25.0-29.9	660 (16.6)	26 (19.3)		
 ≥30	350 (8.8)	10 (7.4)		
 Missing	620 (15.6)	18 (13.3)		
Stage at breast cancer diagnosis			0.002	
 I	1053 (26.5)	25 (18.5)		
 II	2092 (52.7)	67 (49.6)		
 III	734 (18.5)	40 (29.6)		
 Missing	90 (2.3)	3 (2.2)		
Tumor grade			<0.001	
 G1	53 (1.3)	11 (8.1)		
 G2	826 (20.8)	67 (49.6)		
 G3	2774 (69.9)	40 (29.6)		
 Missing	316 (8.0)	17 (12.6)		
Tumor size			0.001	
 T1	1545 (38.9)	42 (31.1)		
 T2	1764 (44.4)	53 (39.3)		
 T3-T4	532 (13.4)	33 (24.4)		
 Missing	128 (3.2)	7 (5.2)		
Nodal status			<0.001	
 N0	2063 (52.0)	48 (35.6)		
 N1	1321 (33.3)	59 (43.7)		
 N2-N3	474 (11.9)	25 (18.5)		
 Missing	111 (2.8)	3 (2.2)		
Laterality			0.104	
 Left	1905 (48.0)	73 (54.1)		
 Right	1900 (47.9)	61 (45.2)		
 Bilateral	152 (3.8)	1 (0.7)		
 Missing	12 (0.3)	0 (0.0)		
Breast surgery			0.011	
 Not done	11 (0.3)	1 (0.7)		
 Breast conserving surgery	1603 (40.4)	37 (27.4)		
 Mastectomy	2314 (58.3)	93 (68.9)		
 Missing	41 (1.0)	4 (3.0)		
Tumor subtype			<0.001	
 Luminal A	484 (12.2)	57 (42.2)		
 Luminal B	865 (21.8)	33 (24.4)		
 TNBC	2049 (51.6)	19 (14.1)		
 HER2-positive	282 (7.1)	8 (5.9)		
 Missing	289 (7.3)	18 (13.3)		
Use of radiotherapy			0.576	
 No	1301 (32.8)	42 (31.1)		
 Yes	2592 (65.3)	93 (68.9)		
 Missing	76 (1.9)	0 (0.0)		
Type of systemic treatment			0.471	
 Not done	47 (1.2)	1 (0.7)		
 Neoadjuvant	1713 (43.2)	52 (38.5)		
 Adjuvant	2176 (54.8)	81 (60.0)		
 Missing	33 (0.8)	1 (0.7)		
Use of chemotherapy			<0.001	
 No	258 (6.5)	21 (15.6)		
 Yes	3689 (92.9)	113 (83.7)		
 Missing	22 (0.5)	1 (0.7)		
Type of chemotherapy (for CT = yes)			0.780	
 Anthracycline- and taxane-based	2607 (70.7)	82 (72.6)		
 Anthracycline-based	697 (18.9)	17 (15.0)		
 Taxane-based	155 (4.2)	4 (3.5)		
 Others	113 (3.1)	4 (3.5)		
 Missing	117 (3.2)	6 (5.3)		
Use of endocrine therapy (for HR+)			0.277	
 No	83 (4.8)	3 (2.6)		
 Yes	1624 (93.9)	111 (97.4)		
 Missing	23 (1.3)	0 (0.0)		
Type of endocrine therapy (for HR+ and ET = yes)			0.896	
 Tamoxifen alone	566 (34.8)	37 (33.3)		
 Tamoxifen + LHRHa	465 (28.6)	32 (28.8)		
 LHRHa alone	28 (1.7)	1 (0.9)		
 AI ± LHRHa	277 (17.1)	23 (20.7)		
 Tamoxifen and AI (± LHRHa)	250 (15.4)	15 (13.5)		
 Others	23 (1.4)	2 (1.8)		
 Missing	15 (0.9)	1 (0.9)		
Use of anti-HER2 therapy (for HER2+)			0.843	
 No	28 (9.9)	1 (12.5)		
 Yes	243 (86.2)	7 (87.5)		
 Missing	11 (3.9)	0 (0.0)		
Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy			0.422	
 No	1651 (41.6)	51 (37.8)		
 Yes	2257 (56.9)	81 (60.0)		
 Missing	61 (1.5)	3 (2.2)		
Bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy			0.598	
 No	1849 (46.6)	60 (44.4)		
 Yes	2045 (51.5)	74 (54.8)		
 Missing	75 (1.9)	1 (0.7)		
AI, aromatase inhibitor; BC, breast cancer; CT, chemotherapy; ET, endocrine therapy; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HR, hormone receptor; IQR, interquartile range; LHRHa, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

Survival analyses

Table 2 reports the incidence and type of disease-free and overall survival events in patients with pure ductal and pure lobular breast cancer. Lobular tumors had more locoregional recurrences than ductal tumors (12.6% versus 7.6%, P = 0.047). No significant differences were observed in terms of distant recurrences or secondary malignancies.Table 2 Type of disease-free events in young BRCA carriers with pure ductal versus pure lobular breast cancer

	Pure ductal BC n (%)
n = 3969	Pure lobular BC n (%)
n = 135	P value	
Follow-up (years), median (IQR)	7.77 (4.47-12.62)	8.25 (4.73-14.41)		
No events	2529 (63.7)	77 (57.0)	0.122	
Locoregional recurrence	301 (7.6)	17 (12.6)	0.047	
Distant recurrence	446 (11.2)	18 (13.3)	0.410	
Second primary malignancy	159 (4.0)	2 (1.5)	0.175	
 Ovary	91 (2.3)	1 (0.7)		
 Pancreas	9 (0.2)	0 (0.0)		
 Cervix	9 (0.2)	0 (0.0)		
 Colorectal	11 (0.3)	0 (0.0)		
 Hematology	8 (0.2)	0 (0.0)		
 Skin	18 (0.5)	1 (0.7)		
 Thyroid	9 (0.2)	0 (0.0)		
 Endometrial	8 (0.2)	0 (0.0)		
 Upper gastrointestinal tract	5 (0.1)	0 (0.0)		
 Other	30 (0.8)	0 (0.0)		
Second primary breast cancer	496 (12.5)	18 (13.3)	0.791	
Death without any disease-free survival event	38 (1.0)	3 (2.2)	0.151	
BC, breast cancer; IQR, interquartile range.

With a median follow-up of 7.8 years (interquartile range 4.5-12.6 years), no significant differences were observed in survival outcomes between patients with ductal versus lobular tumors, neither in the unadjusted nor in the adjusted models (Table 3).Table 3 Multivariate analysis of disease-free and overall survival in young BRCA carriers with pure ductal versus pure lobular breast cancers

	Disease-free survival	Overall survival	
	HR	95% CI	P value	HR	95% CI	P value	
Histological type			0.536			0.987	
 Ductal	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 Lobular	1.01	0.74-1.37		0.96	0.62-1.50		
Year of diagnosis			0.717			0.047	
 2000-2004	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 2005-2008	1.07	0.89-1.24		1.33	1.01-1.75		
 2009-2012	0.97	0.81-1.15		1.32	0.99-1.77		
 2013-2016	1.03	0.85-1.23		1.61	1.19-2.18		
 2017-2020	1.10	0.88-1.37		1.63	1.12-2.39		
Tumor grade			0.066			0.115	
 G1	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 G2	1.42	0.85-2.36		1.99	0.73-5.42		
 G3	1.20	0.71-2.04		1.50	0.54-4.16		
Tumor size			<0.001			<0.001	
 T1	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 T2	1.14	1.01-1.29		1.53	1.24-1.89		
 T3-T4	1.47	1.23-1.74		2.21	1.70-2.88		
Nodal status			<0.001			<0.001	
 N0	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 N1	1.30	1.14-1.47		1.78	1.44-2.18		
 N2-N3	1.70	1.44-2.01		2.60	2.02-3.35		
Tumor subtype			0.034			0.584	
 Luminal A	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 Luminal B	1.02	0.80-1.31		1.19	0.81-1.75		
 TNBC	1.27	0.99-1.63		1.31	0.89-1.93		
 HER2-positive	1.04	0.79-1.36		1.18	0.76-1.82		
Breast surgery			<0.001			0.008	
 Breast conserving surgery	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 Not done	3.02	1.53-5.95		4.26	1.92-9.46		
 Mastectomy	0.78	0.70-0.87		1.10	0.92-1.33		
Age at diagnosis, years			0.055			0.997	
 ≤35	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 >35	0.91	0.81-1.01		1.01	0.85-1.20		
Use of chemotherapy			<0.001			0.025	
 No	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 Yes	0.60	0.48-0.75		0.57	0.39-0.84		
BRCA status			0.827			0.532	
 BRCA1	Ref.	—		Ref.	—		
 BRCA2	0.97	0.84-1.12		0.88	0.71-1.10		
 BRCA1 and BRCA2	0.97	0.53-1.77		1.25	0.51-3.04		
CI, confidence interval; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HR, hazard ratio; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

The 5-year DFS was 76% (95% CI 74% to 77%) in patients with ductal tumors, and 75% (95% CI 66% to 82%) in patients with lobular tumors (univariate Cox HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.49; adjusted HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.37; Figure 1).Figure 1 Kaplan–Meier survival estimates of disease-free survival in young BRCA carriers with pure ductal versus pure lobular breast cancer.

The 5-year OS was 92% (95% CI 91% to 93%) in patients with ductal tumors, and 92% (95% CI 85% to 96%) in patients with lobular tumors (univariate Cox HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.49; adjusted HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62-1.50; Figure 2).Figure 2 Kaplan–Meier survival estimates of overall survival in young BRCA carriers with pure ductal versus pure lobular breast cancer.

No statistically significant interactions were observed between histology and type of specific BRCA gene [BRCA 1 versus 2; P for interaction (DFS) = 0.586, P for interaction (OS) = 0.246], breast cancer subtypes [P for interaction (DFS) = 0.886, P for interaction (OS) = 0.626], and BMI [P for interaction (DFS) = 0.250, P for interaction (OS) = 0.298].

No significant differences in survival outcomes were observed between patients with pure lobular versus pure ductal tumors according to type of specific BRCA gene (BRCA 1 versus 2) (Supplementary Tables S2 and S3 and Figures S2-S4, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103714), breast cancer subtype (luminal-like, HER2-positive, TNBC) (Supplementary Tables S2 and S3 and Figures S5-S12, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103714), and BMI (<25 versus ≥25) (Supplementary Tables S2 and S3 and Figures S13-S16, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103714).

Discussion

In this large real-world cohort of young BRCA carriers with breast cancer, we assessed the impact of the different breast cancer histologies. Among the 4628 young patients included, we observed that the incidence of pure lobular histology was low, concerning only 3% of cases.1

Invasive lobular carcinoma represents ∼5%-15% of all breast cancer diagnoses, ranking as the second most common histology following invasive ductal carcinoma. Lobular tumors are recognized by their small, detached epithelial cells, with the majority being ER-positive and HER2-negative, and occurring more often in older women compared with ductal tumors.15,16

Our cohort included exclusively young women up to the age of 40 years at the time of diagnosis, and the majority of patients were carriers of a BRCA1 PV, that is most often associated with a TNBC phenotype. This might explain the low prevalence of lobular histology in our cohort, where more than one half of patients had a TNBC. Mavaddat et al.9 previously described a 4.5% prevalence of lobular tumors in their cohort of BRCA carriers, of which 2.2% were observed in BRCA1 and 8.3% in BRCA2 carriers; however, it should be considered that median age at diagnosis was 40 years in BRCA1 carriers and 43 years in BRCA2 carriers, respectively, which is older than the median age in our cohort.

Clinically, lobular tumors behave differently from ductal carcinoma, often appearing as multifocal or multicentric disease.17 Although information on multifocality was not available in our study, patients with lobular tumors more often had mastectomy compared with those with ductal tumors. Multifocality may have contributed to these surgical decisions. Of note, the detached cell nature and low cell density of lobular tumors contribute to the challenge in their clinical and radiological detection.18 This may underlie the relatively higher disease stage at diagnosis observed in our lobular cohort and the higher proportion of tumors with large tumor size (T3-T4) compared with the ductal carcinomas.

Additionally, lobular tumors display a distinct metastatic pattern involving the peritoneum, ovaries, gastrointestinal tract, leptomeninges, alongside common bone lesions.19 In our cohort, patients with lobular tumors experienced more locoregional recurrences compared with those with ductal tumors, with no significant differences in the rate of distant recurrences. It should be noted, however, that only the first recurrence event was analyzed, with information not available concerning possible distant recurrences after a locoregional recurrence.

From a therapeutic perspective, early-stage lobular breast cancers exhibit lower responsiveness to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy than ductal cancers,20,21 and some studies suggested greater benefit from aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy.22 The latter consideration was recently questioned by the results of a large individual patient meta-analysis showing no evidence of differential efficacy for aromatase inhibitors over tamoxifen in lobular versus ductal carcinomas, and thus suggesting histology should not be considered as a predictive marker for differential endocrine treatment benefit.23 In our cohort, patients with lobular tumors received less chemotherapy than those with ductal tumors. We observed no significant differences on the type of endocrine therapy administered to patients with pure ductal versus pure lobular hormone receptor-positive tumors.

In our analysis, no significant differences were observed either in DFS or in OS between patients with ductal and lobular tumors, suggesting that in young BRCA carriers the histology does not appear to impact on prognosis. This is in contrast with some retrospective studies24,25 exploring prognosis of lobular tumors regardless of BRCA status. In a French retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic breast cancer, lobular histology was identified as an independent adverse prognostic factor.25 Of note, the different settings (early versus metastatic) hamper a direct comparison between studies. In a Korean cohort study including more than 225 000 premenopausal patients, the breast cancer-specific survival of patients with stage I-III lobular breast cancer was significantly lower than that of patients with ductal tumors within the first 10 years after diagnosis.24 The presence of a BRCA germline mutation was not considered in this study. Overall, our data need to be carefully evaluated considering the small number of patients with lobular breast cancer (only 3%).

Besides their clinicopathological characterization, various genomic initiatives have attempted to characterize the molecular landscape of lobular breast cancer.26,27 PVs in ATM, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with an increased risk of lobular breast cancer, while BRCA1 PVs are not.26 Mutations in CDH1, responsible for E-cadherin, the cell adhesion molecule, are nearly pathognomonic genomic events in lobular tumors, reported in up to 90% of cases.27, 28, 29 Thus, consistent evidence supports the fact that lobular breast cancer is a distinct clinical and biological entity. Nonetheless, with few exceptions,30 these patients typically undergo the same treatments and participate in the same clinical trials as those with ductal breast cancers.31 Moreover, many trials do not specifically report outcomes based on histology, complicating the extrapolation of data for patients with lobular tumors. Lobular breast cancers are often underrepresented in trials due to their diffuse growth pattern and lack of measurable disease.32 Consequently, addressing the numerous uncertainties and unmet needs in lobular breast cancer management requires tailored clinical studies for this specific patient subgroup.

Our study has some limitations that should be acknowledged, most of which are related to its retrospective nature. All information was extracted from medical records, and some potentially relevant variables (e.g. ethnicity, gene expression signature data) were not collected. Histology was locally assessed, and no central pathology review was carried out. Additionally, data were collected from multiple centers worldwide, with different health care systems and different drug availabilities. Patients were diagnosed over a period of 20 years, during which the treatment of early breast cancer has improved, particularly for patients with hormone receptor-positive disease, who represent the majority of patients with lobular tumors. Patients included toward the end of the study period had less observation time to evaluate outcomes and recurrences; this limitation is particularly important for the interpretation of survival data, especially patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. Finally, this study focused on young BRCA carriers, so our results are not necessarily generalizable to BRCA carriers of all ages.

Conclusions

In this large cohort of young women with breast cancer and known germline BRCA1/2 PVs, the incidence of pure lobular histology was low (i.e. 3%). Patients with lobular cancers had higher disease stage at diagnosis, more luminal-like disease and more BRCA2 PVs. Histology did not appear to impact prognosis. Prospective clinical trials that are dedicated to lobular breast cancer could further elucidate best practices related to the treatment of this distinct biologic entity.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data

Acknowledgements

The abstract of the present work was accepted for presentation at the 10.13039/501100007075 ESMO Breast Cancer Annual Meeting 2024 and was awarded with an ESMO Merit Travel Grant Award.

EA acknowledges Dr Daphné t’Kint de Roodenbeke and Dr Masa Auprih, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels (Belgium) for their contributions. JB acknowledges Prof. Rajeev Sarin and Cancer Genetic Clinic, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai for their contributions. RF acknowledges the Breast Unit and Medical Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo, Monza (Italy) for their contribution.

Funding

This work was supported by the 10.13039/501100005010 Italian Association for Cancer Research [AIRC grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698 to the BRCA BCY Collaboration (NCT03673306)]. The 10.13039/501100007075 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) for a translational research fellowship at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, at the time this study was initiated [to ML] (no grant number). The Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the 10.13039/501100003710 Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the 10.13039/501100003625 Ministry of Health and Welfare , Republic of Korea [grant number HC20C0135 to HJK]. Data collection for most Australian participants was through the kConFab Follow-Up Study with support from 10.13039/501100001111 Cancer Australia and the 10.13039/501100001026 National Breast Cancer Foundation [grant number PdCCRS 1100868], 10.13039/501100001111 Cancer Australia [grant number 809195], the Australian 10.13039/501100001026 National Breast Cancer Foundation (IF 17), the Australian 10.13039/501100000925 National Health and Medical Research Council [grant numbers 454508, 288704, and 145684], the United States 10.13039/100000002 National Institutes of Health [grant number 1RO1CA159868], the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen [to AHP] (no grant number).

The study supporters had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclosure

EA: honoraria and/or advisory boards from: Eli Lilly, Sandoz, AstraZeneca. Research grant to my Institution from Gilead. travel grants from: Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Genetic, Istituto Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca (all outside the submitted work). RBM: support for attending medical conferences from: Pfizer; speakers fee from Novartis, AstraZeneca (all outside the submitted work). SL: reports grants paid to the institute from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, and Agendia outside the submitted work; consulting fees from AstraZeneca paid to the institute; educational fees from Daiichi Sankyo paid to the institute; other financial support for attending meetings from Daiichi Sankyo; non-financial support from Genentech (drug), Roche (drug), Gilead Sciences (drug), Novartis (drug), Agendia (gene expression tests), and AstraZeneca (drug). SCL has a patent (PCT/EP2022/73958) pending on a method for assessing homologous recombination deficiency in ovarian cancer cells. KP: honoraria for consultations/lectures/training/clinical trials and payment of conferences fees from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Teva, Egis, and Vipharm (all outside the submitted work). FD: support for attending medical conferences from: Novartis, Gilead; speakers fee from Novartis. GNM: support to attend medical conference from AstraZeneca. LC: speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, MSD; advisory role for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, Roche. RDR: AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Janssen, Bayer, Orion Pharma. CRJ: honoraria (paid to my institution) from Theramex, advisory board (paid to my institution) from Theramex, Roche, Gedeon Richter, speakers bureau (paid to my institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Organon, Novartis, research funding (paid to my institution) from Gedeon Richter and Bayer Healthcare. WC: honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, and Eisai. CV: consultancy or role in advisory board: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini. Honoraria as a speaker: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Istituto Gentili, MSD, Accademia di Medicina. Research grants (to the institution): Roche. LP: speaker/advisor/investigator: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Novartis, Lilly, Takeda, Helsinn, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Sandoz, Actavis, Amgen, Archigen, Amicus, Taiho, Infinity, Bioclin, G1 Therapeutics, MEI Pharma, Immunocore/Medison, NAPO Pharmaceuticals, Oktal, PharmaSwiss, AbbVie, Medica Linea, MAK Pharma, Agendia, Recordati, Incyte. FP: honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, research grants: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Ipsen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, Viatris. Research funding: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche. EdA: Financial: Honoraria and/or advisory board from Roche/GNE, Novartis, SeaGen, Zodiac, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Gilead Sciences; travel grants from Roche/GNE and AstraZeneca; Research grant to my institution from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, and GSK/Novartis, Gilead Sciences; non-financial: ESMO director of Membership 2023-2025; BSMO President 2023-2026. EB: research funding (to the institution) from Gilead, speakers fee from Eli Lilly. ML: advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, and Exact Sciences; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Knight, Ipsen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca; receiving travel grants from Gilead, Roche and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving research funding (to his institution) from Gilead; and having non-financial interests as the chair of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Young Oncologists Committee (YOC) and as a member of the national council of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Data sharing

Data are available upon reasonable request and submission of a research project proposal to the corresponding author, and after review and approval of the proposal by the BRCA BCY Collaboration.
==== Refs
References

1 Tan P.H. Ellis I. Allison K. The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast Histopathology 77 2020 181 185 32056259
2 Li C.I. Uribe D.J. Daling J.R. Clinical characteristics of different histologic types of breast cancer Br J Cancer 93 2005 1046 1052 16175185
3 Adachi Y. Ishiguro J. Kotani H. Comparison of clinical outcomes between luminal invasive ductal carcinoma and luminal invasive lobular carcinoma BMC Cancer 16 2016 248 27015895
4 Mathew A. Rajagopal P.S. Villgran V. Distinct pattern of metastases in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 77 2017 660 666 28757653
5 De Schepper M. Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 7-10, 2021, Gonzalez Convention Center, San Antonio, Texas 2021 American Association for Cancer Research Philadelphia, PA
6 Ciriello G. Gatza M.L. Beck A.H. Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast cancer Cell 163 2015 506 519 26451490
7 Loibl S. André F. Bachelot T. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann Oncol 35 2024 159 182 38101773
8 Ditchi Y. Broudin C. El Dakdouki Y. Low risk of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast in carriers of BRCA1 (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) and TP53 (Li-Fraumeni syndrome) germline mutations Breast J 25 2019 16 19 30414230
9 Mavaddat N. Barrowdale D. Andrulis I.L. Pathology of breast and ovarian cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the consortium of investigators of modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21 2012 134 147 22144499
10 Lambertini M. Blondeaux E. Agostinetto E. Pregnancy after breast cancer in young BRCA carriers: an international hospital-based cohort study JAMA 331 2024 49 59 38059899
11 Wolff A.C. Hammond M.E.H. Allison K.H. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline focused update Arch Pathol Lab Med 142 2018 1364 1382 29846104
12 Allison K.H. Hammond M.E.H. Dowsett M. Estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline update J Clin Oncol 38 2020 1346 1366 31928404
13 Partridge A.H. Hughes M.E. Warner E.T. Subtype-dependent relationship between young age at diagnosis and breast cancer survival J Clin Oncol 34 2016 3308 3314 27480155
14 Tolaney S.M. Garrett-Mayer E. White J. Updated Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) in adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials: STEEP Version 2.0 J Clin Oncol 39 2021 2720 2731 34003702
15 Christgen M. Steinemann D. Kühnle E. Lobular breast cancer: clinical, molecular and morphological characteristics Pathol Res Pract 212 2016 583 597 27233940
16 Pestalozzi B.C. Zahrieh D. Mallon E. Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials J Clin Oncol 26 2008 3006 3014 18458044
17 Iorfida M. Maiorano E. Orvieto E. Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome Breast Cancer Res Treat 133 2012 713 723 22399188
18 Johnson K. Sarma D. Hwang E.S. Lobular breast cancer series: imaging Breast Cancer Res 17 2015 94 26163296
19 Guiu S. Wolfer A. Jacot W. Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: how special are they for systemic therapy decisions? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 92 2014 235 257 25129506
20 Cocquyt V.F. Blondeel P.N. Depypere H.T. Different responses to preoperative chemotherapy for invasive lobular and invasive ductal breast carcinoma Eur J Surg Oncol 29 2003 361 367 12711290
21 Van Baelen K. Geukens T. Maetens M. Current and future diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer Ann Oncol 33 2022 769 785 35605746
22 Metzger Filho O. Giobbie-Hurder A. Mallon E. Relative effectiveness of letrozole compared with tamoxifen for patients with lobular carcinoma in the BIG 1-98 trial J Clin Oncol 33 2015 2772 2779 26215945
23 Hills R.K. Oesterreich S. Metzger O. Abstract PD14-08: Effectiveness of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in lobular compared to ductal carcinoma: individual patient data meta-analysis of 9328 women with central histopathology, and 7654 women with e-Cadherin status Cancer Res 82 2002 PD14-08
24 Yoon T.I. Jeong J. Lee S. Survival outcomes in premenopausal patients with invasive lobular carcinoma JAMA Netw Open 6 2023 e2342270
25 Dalenc F. Lusque A. De La Motte Rouge T. Impact of lobular versus ductal histology on overall survival in metastatic breast cancer: a French retrospective multicentre cohort study Eur J Cancer 164 2022 70 79 35176614
26 Yadav S. Hu C. Nathanson K.L. Germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes among women with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast J Clin Oncol 39 2021 3918 3926 34672684
27 Desmedt C. Zoppoli G. Gundem G. Genomic characterization of primary invasive lobular breast cancer J Clin Oncol 34 2016 1872 1881 26926684
28 Morrogh M. Andrade V.P. Giri D. Cadherin-catenin complex dissociation in lobular neoplasia of the breast Breast Cancer Res Treat 132 2012 641 652 22080244
29 Dossus L. Benusiglio P.R. Lobular breast cancer: incidence and genetic and non-genetic risk factors Breast Cancer Res 17 2015 37 25848941
30 Agostinetto E. Nader-Marta G. Paesmans M. ROSALINE: a phase II, neoadjuvant study targeting ROS1 in combination with endocrine therapy in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast Future Oncol 18 2022 2383 2392 35695563
31 Trapani D. Curigliano G. How to treat lobular cancer in the adjuvant setting? Curr Opin Oncol 32 2020 561 567 32826487
32 Abel M.K. Melisko M.E. Rugo H.S. Decreased enrollment of patients with advanced lobular breast cancer compared to ductal breast cancer in interventional clinical trials J Clin Oncol 39 2021 1092 33497269
