Outcome of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Compared to Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma: A Population Based Study from British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Lobular carcinoma is the 2nd most common invasive breast cancer histology after ductal carcinoma. Though phenotypically they are different, the two histologies are often treated the same with presumed similar outcomes. We sought to compare the baseline demographics, standard pathologic factors and long term clinical outcomes between lobular and ductal carcinoma from a large population based breast cancer registry.Methods: A retrospective cohort of referred patients to the BCCA with a diagnosis of stage I-III pure lobular or pure invasive ductal carcinoma from 1989-2000 was identified. Prior or synchronous breast cancers and cases with unknown grade were excluded. Standard demographic and pathologic factors was abstracted from the BCCA Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit database and compared between the two histologies. 10 year outcomes were calculated by Kaplan Meier method, with differences compared by log rank test. Median follow up for the entire cohort was 9.3 years.Results: A total of 13,203 individual patients meeting identified inclusion criteria were identified: 11,911 invasive ductal and 1,292 invasive lobular cancers. Lobular carcinomas generally had a higher frequency of poor prognostic factors: older age (≥ 70 years old), larger tumour size, and greater frequency of N2 nodal involvement (all p<0.001). However lobular carcinomas also had a higher frequency of better predictive factors: ER+ status and low grade tumours (both p<0.001). There were differences in locoregional treatments and systemic therapies between the groups. No differences were seen at 10 year estimated relapse free survival (76% vs 74%), distant RFS (78% vs 77%), breast cancer specific survival (81% vs 81%) and overall survival (69% vs 70%) between lobular and ductal cancers respectively. Only 10 year locoregional RFS significantly favored lobular cancers (93% vs 89%; p<0.001), though there was also a higher mastectomy rate (55% vs 39%) in this cohort.Conclusion: Though invasive lobular carcinomas are epidemiologically and phenotypically different from ductal carcinomas, clinical outcomes are comparable between these two common histologies. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 2046.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".