Quantitative and qualitative patient-reported analysis of misdiagnosis and/or late diagnosis of metastatic lobular cancer

BackgroundInvasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the most commonly diagnosed special histological subtype of breast cancer (BC). Metastatic ILC (mILC) is less sensitive to FDG-PET imaging and often metastasizes to unusual sites --peritoneum, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, ovaries, urinary tract, and orbit--which may go unrecognized after a long disease-free interval. Some metastatic sites cause nonspecific symptoms, like abdominal/epigastric pain, with numerous published case reports of mILC misdiagnosed as gastric cancer. These atypical BC metastatic sites may lead to late and/or misdiagnosis, thereby delaying effective treatments. ObjectiveWe developed a patient survey to investigate the patient-reported prevalence of delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis of mILC and their potential impact upon treatment outcomes. MethodsA 45-question survey was developed and piloted with breast cancer researchers, clinical oncologists, and patient advocates. This IRB-approved survey was then distributed to patients with ILC. Analyses including data QC and visualization were conducted in R using descriptive statistics. Incomplete or inconsistent responses were excluded, and summary statistics were stratified by four common mILC sites to highlight subgroup differences. Results525 patient surveys were completed, with 450 patients diagnosed with ILC, and of those 321 diagnosed with mILC. For those with mILC, 33.3% (n=107) were diagnosed with de novo mILC at initial presentation. Of the patients diagnosed with mILC, 32.1% (n=103) presented with other medical conditions at diagnosis. Misdiagnosis was reported by 26.2% (n=84) of patients with mILC, and of these cases, 31% (n=26) had [≥]2 misdiagnoses. The top 5 misdiagnoses were bone-related condition (24.7%), benign breast condition (23.4%), another type of BC (7.8%), diagnostic delay (7.8%), and menopause related (5.2%). 44.5% of patients waited [≥]1 year for an accurate diagnosis. 49 patients were treated for their misdiagnosis, and 6 received incorrect cancer treatments. The most frequently reported contributors to delayed or misdiagnosis were inconclusive imaging, providers lack of ILC knowledge, and initial misdiagnosis. Of the 321 patients with mILC, 138 (42.9%) reported symptoms before diagnosis; the most common were back pain (16.5%), fatigue/malaise (14.9%), GI symptoms (11.8%), bloating (8.4%), and weight loss (8.1%). Although 40% of patients reported having a mammogram at the time of their initial misdiagnosis, ILC was detected in only 20.5% (24/116) of these cases, and mammography detected only 5 (25%) of the 20 de novo mILC cases. Patients reported additional diagnostic testing within 1-3 months of their initial mammogram, includingbiopsy, ultrasound (US), and MRI. 47.9% of patients were in active BC surveillance after curative intent therapy at the time of their mILC diagnosis; however, no statistical difference was seen in time to diagnosis versus those patients not under surveillance. ConclusionOur survey results underscore the urgent need to improve diagnostic strategies for mILC. Addressing delays and diagnostic errors in mILC is critical to optimizing treatment strategies and improving patient outcomes.