title: Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: Can the evidence guide practice?
abstract: The clinical significance of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (PLCIS) is a subject of controversy. As a consequence, there is a risk of providing inconsistent management to patients presenting with PLCIS. This review aims to establish whether the current guidelines for the management of PLCIS are consistent with current evidence. A systematic electronic search was performed to identify all English language articles regarding PLCIS management. The data was analysed, specifically looking at: incidence of concurrent disease, recurrence rates, long-term prognosis and PLCIS management. A search was also performed for PLCIS management guidelines for the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, Germany and pan-European. The results of the evidence analyses were compared to the guidelines in order to establish whether the recommended management is consistent with the published evidence. Nine studies (level 3-4 evidence), involving a total of 176 patients and five management guidelines (from United Kingdom, United States, Australia and pan-European) were included in the review. From the evidence, 46 of 93 (49%) patients were found to have PLCIS with concurrent invasive disease on excision specimen analysis. Regarding recurrence rates, 11 of 117 (9.4%) patients developed a recurrence of PLCIS. There were no instances of invasive disease or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on recurrence histology. There were no studies assessing long-term outcomes in PLCIS cases. With regards to the management guidelines, the Association of Breast Surgery (United Kingdom) and the National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Care (Australia) do not mention PLCIS. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (United States) suggest considering excision of PLCIS with negative margins. The NHS Breast Screening Programme (United Kingdom) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (pan-European) recommend PLCIS should be treated as with DCIS. We conclude that high quality evidence to inform guidance is lacking, thus recommendations are relatively vague. However, based on the available evidence, it would seem prudent to treat PLCIS in a similar manner to DCIS.
authors.affiliation: Andrew Pieri, Wansbeck General Hospital, Northumbria, NE63 9JJ, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Andrew
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Pieri
authors.affiliation: Andrew Pieri, Wansbeck General Hospital, Northumbria, NE63 9JJ, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Harvey
authors.affiliation: Andrew Pieri, Wansbeck General Hospital, Northumbria, NE63 9JJ, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Nigel
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Bundred
keywords: Breast cancer; Breast carcinoma; Carcinoma in situ; Excision margin; Guideline; Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ; Recurrence rate
references.citation: Surg Pathol Clin. 2009 Jun;2(2):273-99
references.pmid: 26838323
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 May;176(5):1255-9
references.pmid: 11312190
references.citation: Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 Nov;33(11):1683-94
references.pmid: 19701073
references.citation: Cancer. 1999 Feb 1;85(3):616-28
references.pmid: 10091735
references.citation: Br J Cancer. 1997;76(9):1131-3
references.pmid: 9365159
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 Aug 11;323(7308):334-6
references.pmid: 11498496
references.citation: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011 Jun;135(6):737-43
references.pmid: 21631266
references.citation: Br J Cancer. 1997;76(9):1234-40
references.pmid: 9365176
references.citation: Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35 Suppl 1:1-22
references.pmid: 19299100
references.citation: Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Apr;37(4):279-89
references.pmid: 21306860
references.citation: Breast. 2007 Oct;16(5):533-9
references.pmid: 17629481
references.citation: Asian J Surg. 2010 Apr;33(2):76-82
references.pmid: 21029943
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Oct;199(4):929-35
references.pmid: 22997389
references.citation: Histopathology. 2010 Sep;57(3):472-8
references.pmid: 20727019
references.citation: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009 Jul;133(7):1116-20
references.pmid: 19642738
references.citation: J Pathol. 2005 Sep;207(1):1-13
references.pmid: 15957152
references.citation: Hum Pathol. 2002 Jun;33(6):620-7
references.pmid: 12152161
references.citation: Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Nov;32(11):1721-6
references.pmid: 18769331
references.citation: Am Surg. 2001 Jun;67(6):513-9; discussion 519-21
references.pmid: 11409797
references.citation: Oncology (Williston Park). 2011 Apr 15;25(4):358, 360, 362
references.pmid: 21618958
references.citation: Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004 Jun;30(5):475-9
references.pmid: 15135472
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2005 Apr;200(4):516-26
references.pmid: 15804465
references.citation: Breast J. 2013 Jan-Feb;19(1):116-8
references.pmid: 23231019