4.7 Article

Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with invasive ductal versus lobular breast cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 11, Pages 2859-2865

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds180

Keywords

adjuvant chemotherapy; histology; hormonal treatment; invasive ductal carcinoma; invasive lobular carcinoma; survival

Categories

Funding

  1. Stichting Heelkundig Kankeronderzoek Zuid-Nederland
  2. Comprehensive Cancer Centre South
  3. Comprehensive Cancer Centre, the Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On the basis of the lack of response of invasive lobular breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we questioned the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in relation to histology. Women with primary nonmetastatic invasive ductal or (mixed type) lobular breast cancer, aged 50-70 years, diagnosed between 1995 and 2008, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and followed until January 1, 2010. The patients were divided in two groups: one group receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy only and the other receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy. In total, 19 609 patients had ductal cancer and 3685 had lobular cancer. The 10-year overall survival rate in ductal cancer when treated with hormonal therapy alone was 69%, compared with 74% with the combination therapy (P < 0.0001). In lobular cancer, 10-year survival rates were 68% after hormonal treatment alone and 66% after the combination therapy (P = 0.45). The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality in ductal cancer after combination therapy was 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.76; P < 0.0001], compared with hormonal treatment alone. The HR in lobular cancer was 1.00 (95% CI 0.82-1.21; P = 0.97). Adjuvant chemotherapy seems to confer no additional beneficial effects in postmenopausal patients with pure or mixed type lobular breast cancer receiving hormonal therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available