International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

• Published in: NPJ breast cancer Vol. 10; no. 1; pp. 61 - 7
• Main Authors: Oesterreich, Steffi, Pate, Leigh, Lee, Adrian V., Chen, Fangyuan, Jankowitz, Rachel C., Mukhtar, Rita, Metzger, Otto, Sikora, Matthew J., Li, Christopher I., Sotiriou, Christos, Shah, Osama S., Koorman, Thijs, Ulaner, Gary, Reis-Filho, Jorge S., Davidson, Nancy M., Van Baelen, Karen, Hutcheson, Laurie, Freeney, Siobhan, Migyanka, Flora, Turner, Claire, Derksen, Patrick, Bear, Todd, Desmedt, Christine
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 20-07-2024; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 631/67/1347; 692/4028; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Breast cancer; Cancer Research; Cell Biology; Clinical trials; Human Genetics; Oncology; Physicians
• ISSN: 2374-4677; 2374-4677
• DOI: 10.1038/s41523-024-00661-3

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (
N
 = 413), researchers (
N
 = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (
N
 = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC.