Are the imaging features of the pleomorphic variant of invasive lobular carcinoma different from classic ILC of the breast?

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma (PILC) is different from classic invasive lobular carcinoma (CILC) in terms of radiologic and clinicopathologic features.We compared the radiologic and clinicopathologic features of 22 surgically confirmed PILCs in 21 patients from 2004 to 2009 and 47 CILCs from 47 consecutive patients. For all cases, we reviewed the imaging findings, medical records and pathological results.PILC had a higher T stage, N stage, nuclear and histologic grade compared to CILC. PILC was more commonly negative for estrogen receptors and positive for HER2 than CILC (all p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in age, symptoms, tumor size, extensive intraductal component, lymphovascular invasion, triple negative profile, or multiplicity between the two groups. PILC was not detected on mammography in 1 (4.5%) of 22 cases, whereas CILC was not detected on mammography in 7 (14.9%) of 47 cases and on MRI in 2 (5.0%) of 40 (p = 0.42 and p = 1.000, respectively). MRI identified more frequent multiplicity than mammography for both PILC and CILC (p < 0.001), but was similar to US (p = 0.066). Most lesions showed a spiculated mass or architectural distortion with or without calcifications on mammography and ultrasound. No differences in mass and/or non-mass lesions or kinetics on MRI were observed between the two groups.PILC shows more pathologically aggressive features, but cannot be differentiated from CILC based on imaging findings.