Skip to main content

Table 3 ILC and benefit of genomic companion diagnostic tests

From: Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: the increasing importance of this special subtype

Test Ref. Cohort Results Study conclusion
GGI/MapQuantDx™ [89] 166 ILC   Test outperformed grade Prognostic value in ILC
MammaPrint [90] 217 ILC   Independent value of MammaPrint, specifically in lymph node-negative ILC  
[91] 487 ILC (255 CILC)   10.2% CILC and 22.8% of ILC variants were high risk Prognostic value in ILC
OncotypeDx [55] 353 ILC   20% low-, 72% intermediate-, and 8% high-risk score ILC more likely low/int score but 5-year DMFS equivalent to non-ILC
[92] 30 ILC   All ILC low or int risk Questions utility in ILC; more data required
[93] 97 ILC   1% of ILC (non-pleomorphic) record high-risk RS Questions utility in ILC; more data required
[94] 102 ILC   Different RS distribution in ILC v IBC-NST More data required
[95] 59 ILC   50% ILC in low risk More data required
[96] 9037 ILC SEER data 38.1% ILC intermediate risk; 2.4% high risk More data required
[97] 7316 ILC SEER data 72% ILC in intermediate-risk group; 8% high risk Adjuvant Ctx did not confer survival benefit to int or high risk; note LN+ cases included
[98] 49,819 ILC Genomic Health clinical lab 2004–2017 63.9% ILC in low risk, 33.6 in intermediate, 2.5% in high risk Classic ILCs have lower average RS (16.3) compared to IDC (18.4) and ILC variants (18.2), and lower rate of tumours with high scores (2.5% vs. 10.7% vs. 8.4%, respectively)
Prosigna [99] 341 ILC Danish Breast Cancer Group ILC had poorer 10-year DR rates than ROR matched IDC Prognostic value in ILC
EndoPredict/EPClin [100] 470 ILC TransATAC and ABCSG-6/8 63.4% were low EPClin risk group (a 10-year DR risk of 4.8%) compared to 172 (36.6%) women in the high-risk group (110-year DR risk of 26.6%) Significant prognostic value; Ctx in low-risk group not indicated