Carcinoma of the breast is a histologically heterogeneous disease. Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) accounts for 8-14% of all breast cancers [1,2]. Data from a recent epidemiologic study [3] indicate that for unknown causes the incidence of this type of breast cancer is increasing, especially among postmenopausal women.The morphologic features of lobular carcinoma differ from those of ductal carcinoma. ILC is characterized by small, round cells that are bland in appearance and have scant cytoplasm, which infiltrate the stroma in single file and surround benign breast tissues in a targeted manner [1,4]. Infiltration typically does not destroy anatomic structures or incite a substantial connective tissue response. By virtue of their distinctive growth pattern and biology, lobular carcinomas often fail to form distinct masses that can easily be diagnosed by palpation or mammography. This can make early diagnosis challenging [5,6] and breast conservation approaches more difficult. Lobular carcinomas may have a substantially increased propensity for multifocal and multicentric distribution and for bilaterality [5,[7][8][9][10][11]. Metastatic spread with an uncommon pattern of involvement has been reported [12,13]. CNS = central nervous system; DFS = disease-free survival; EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor; ER = estrogen receptor; IDC = infiltrating ductal carcinoma; ILC = infiltrating lobular carcinoma; OS = overall survival; PgR = progesterone receptor. AbstractIntroduction: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) comprises approximately 10% of breast cancers and appears to have a distinct biology. Because it is less common than infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC), few data have been reported that address the biologic features of ILC in the context of their clinical outcome. In the present study we undertook an extensive comparison of ILC and IDC using a large database to provide a more complete and reliable assessment of their biologic phenotypes and clinical behaviors.

The response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer correlates with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status. ER-positive/PR-negative breast cancers respond less well to selective ER modulator (SERM) therapy than ER-positive/PR-positive tumors. The predictive value of PR has long been attributed to the dependence of PR expression on ER activity, with the absence of PR reflecting a nonfunctional ER and resistance to hormonal therapy. However, recent clinical and laboratory evidence suggests that ER-positive/PR-negative breast cancers may be specifically resistant to SERMs, whereas they may be less resistant to estrogen withdrawal therapy with aromatase inhibitors, which is a result inconsistent with the nonfunctional ER theory. Novel alternative molecular mechanisms potentially explaining SERM resistance in ER-positive/PR-negative tumors have been suggested by recent experimental indications that growth factors may downregulate PR levels. Thus, the absence of PR may not simply indicate a lack of ER activity, but rather may reflect hyperactive cross talk between ER and growth factor signaling pathways that downregulate PR even as they activate other ER functions. Therefore, ER-positive/PR-negative breast tumors might best be treated by completely blocking ER action via estrogen withdrawal with aromatase inhibitors, by targeted ER degradation, or by combined therapy targeting both ER and growth factor signaling pathways. In this review, we will discuss the biology and etiology of ER-positive/PR-negative breast cancer, highlighting recent data on molecular cross talk between ER and growth factor signaling pathways and demonstrating how PR might be a useful marker of these activities. Finally, we will consider the clinical implications of these observations.

When accurately measured, PgR status is an independent predictive factor for benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. Therefore, PgR status should be taken into account when discussing RR reductions expected from endocrine treatment with individual patients.

Breast cancer evolution and tumor progression are governed by the complex interactions between steroid receptor [estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor] and growth factor receptor signaling. In recent years, the field of cancer therapy has witnessed the emergence of multiple strategies targeting these specific cancer pathways and key molecules (ER and growth factor receptors) to arrest tumor growth and achieve tumor eradication; treatment success, however, has varied and both de novo (up front) and acquired resistance have proven a challenge. Recent studies of ER biology have revealed new insights into ER action in breast cancer and have highlighted the role of an intimate crosstalk between the ER and HER family signaling pathways as a fundamental contributor to the development of resistance to endocrine therapies against the ER pathway. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current knowledge on mechanisms of resistance of breast cancer cells to endocrine therapies due to the crosstalk between the ER and the HER growth factor receptor signaling pathways and to explore new available therapeutic strategies that could prolong duration of response and circumvent endocrine resistant tumor growth.

ER+/PR- tumors express higher levels of HER-1 and HER-2 and display more aggressive features than ER+/PR+ tumors. As in laboratory models, lack of PR expression in ER+ tumors may be a surrogate marker of aberrant growth factor signaling that could contribute to the tamoxifen resistance observed in these tumors.

Purpose: Experimental data suggest a complex cross-talk between HER-2 and estrogen receptor, and it has been hypothesized that HER-2-positive tumors may be less responsive to certain endocrine treatments. Clinical data, however, have been conflicting. We have conducted a metaanalysis on the interaction between the response to endocrine treatment and the overexpression of HER-2 in metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Studies have been identified by searching the Medline, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstract databases. Selection criteria were (a) metastatic breast cancer, (b) endocrine therapy (any line of treatment), and (c) evaluation of HER-2 expression (any method). For each study, the relative risk for treatment failure for HER-2-positive over HER-2-negative patients with 95% confidence interval was calculated as an estimate of the predictive effect of HER-2. Pooled estimates of the relative risk were computed by the MantelHaenszel method. Results: Twelve studies (n = 2,379 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall relative risk was 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.52; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.380). For studies involving tamoxifen, the pooled relative risk was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.48; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.97); for studies involving other hormonal drugs, a pooled relative risk of 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.64; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.08) was estimated. A second meta-analysis limited to tumors that were either estrogen receptor positive, estrogen receptor unknown, or estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive yielded comparable results. Conclusions: HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer is less responsive to any type of endocrine treatment. This effect holds in the subgroup of patients with positive or unknown steroid receptors.

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents the 15-20% of all breast cancers (BC) and is characterized by a very aggressive behavior. Recent data suggest that TNBC is not a single disease, but it is rather an umbrella for different ontology-profiles such as basal like 1 and 2, mesenchymal, and the luminal androgen receptor (LAR). The LAR subtype is characterized by the expression of the Androgen Receptor (AR) and its downstream effects. Notwithstanding the role of the AR in several signaling pathways, its impact on a biological and clinical standpoint is still controversial. The LAR subtype has been associated with better prognosis, less chemotherapy responsiveness and lower pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment. Clinical evidence suggests a role for anti-androgen therapies such as bicalutamide, enzalutamide and abiraterone, offering an interesting chemo-free alternative for chemo-unresponsive patients, and therefore potentially shifting current treatment strategies.

Circulating tumor cell (CTC) clusters may represent one of the key mechanisms initiating the metastasis process. However, the series of pathophysiologic events by which CTC clusters originate, enter the circulation, and reach the distant sites remain to be identified. The cellular and molecular mechanisms that provide survival advantage for CTC clusters during the transit in the blood stream are also still largely unknown. Understanding the biology of CTC clusters is critical to assess this unified scheme employed by cancer and to device strategies to overcome key pathways responsible for their improved metastatic potential. CTC clusters remain an underdeveloped area of research begging the attention of multidisciplinary cancer research teams. Here, we provide insight on existing preclinical evidence on the potential mechanisms leading to CTC cluster formation and dissemination and on processes that may offer survival advantage. We also offer our perspective on future directions to delineate the role of CTC clusters in metastatic cascade and discuss their clinical significance. .