↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of clinical outcomes between luminal invasive ductal carcinoma and luminal invasive lobular carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of clinical outcomes between luminal invasive ductal carcinoma and luminal invasive lobular carcinoma
Published in
BMC Cancer, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2275-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yayoi Adachi, Junko Ishiguro, Haruru Kotani, Tomoka Hisada, Mari Ichikawa, Naomi Gondo, Akiyo Yoshimura, Naoto Kondo, Masaya Hattori, Masataka Sawaki, Takashi Fujita, Toyone Kikumori, Yasushi Yatabe, Yasuhiro Kodera, Hiroji Iwata

Abstract

The pathological and clinical features of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) differ from those of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Several studies have indicated that patients with ILC have a better prognosis than those with ductal carcinoma. However, no previous study has considered the molecular subtypes and histological subtypes of ILC. We compared prognosis between IDC and classical, luminal type ILC and developed prognostic factors for early breast cancer patients with classical luminal ILC. Four thousand one hundred ten breast cancer patients were treated at the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital from 2003 to 2012. We identified 1,661 cases with luminal IDC and 105 cases with luminal classical ILC. We examined baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and prognostic factors of luminal ILC. The prognosis of luminal ILC was significantly worse than that of luminal IDC. The rates of 5-year disease free survival (DFS) were 91.9 % and 88.4 % for patients with luminal IDC and luminal ILC, respectively (P = 0.008). The rates of 5-year overall survival (OS) were 97.6 % and 93.1 % for patients with luminal IDC and luminal ILC respectively (P = 0.030). Although we analyzed prognosis according to stratification by tumor size, luminal ILC tended to have worse DFS than luminal IDC in the large tumor group. In addition, although our analysis was performed according to matching lymph node status, luminal ILC had a significantly worse DFS and OS than luminal IDC in node-positive patients. Survival curves showed that the prognosis for ILC became worse than IDC over time. Multivariate analysis showed that ILC was an important factor related to higher risk of recurrence of luminal type breast cancer, even when tumor size, lymph node status and histological grade were considered. Luminal ILC had worse outcomes than luminal IDC. Consequently, different treatment approaches should be used for luminal ILC than for luminal IDC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,701,042
of 11,285,775 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#656
of 4,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,103
of 286,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#26
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,285,775 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,152 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.