Reporting on invasive lobular breast cancer in clinical trials: a systematic review
Karen Van Baelen, Josephine Van Cauwenberge, Marion Maetens, Gabriela Beck, Ann Camden, Megan-Claire Chase, Valerie Fraser, Siobhan Freeney, Laurie Hutcheson, Julia K. Levine, Tone Lien, Rian Terveer, Claire Turner, Elżbieta Senkus, Rachel C. Jankowitz, Vincent Vandecaveye, Giuseppe Floris, Patrick Neven, Hans Wildiers, Elinor J. Sawyer, Anne Vincent‐Salomon, Patrick W.B. Derksen, Christine Desmedt
Abstract
Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) differs from invasive breast cancer of no special type in many ways. Evidence on treatment efficacy for ILC is, however, lacking. We studied the degree of documentation and representation of ILC in phase III/IV clinical trials for novel breast cancer treatments. Trials were identified on Pubmed and clinicaltrials.gov. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were reviewed for requirements on histological subtype and tumor measurability. Documentation of ILC was assessed and ILC inclusion rate, central pathology and subgroup analyses were evaluated. Inclusion restrictions concerning tumor measurability were found in 39/93 manuscripts. Inclusion rates for ILC were documented in 13/93 manuscripts and varied between 2.0 and 26.0%. No central pathology for ILC was reported and 3/13 manuscripts had ILC sub-analyses. ILC is largely disregarded in most trials with poor representation and documentation. The current inclusion criteria using RECIST v1.1, fall short in recognizing the unique non-measurable metastatic infiltration of ILC.