Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022:33:100630.
doi: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100630. Epub 2022 Aug 31.

Estrogen receptor status has no prognostic relevance in metaplastic breast carcinoma

Evi Abada  1 , Seongho Kim  2 , Keion Dozier  3 , Omar Fehmi  4 , Hyejeong Jang  2 , Ziad Fehmi  4 , Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay  3
Affiliations
Review

Estrogen receptor status has no prognostic relevance in metaplastic breast carcinoma

Evi Abada et al. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2022.

Abstract

Background: Metaplastic breast carcinoma (MBC) is a rare histologic variant of breast cancer characterized by the presence of glandular and non-glandular components. The prognostic significance of estrogen receptor (ER) status has been scarcely studied in these tumors. We therefore investigated the prognostic relevance of ER status in MBC within our patient population.

Design: We reviewed MBC cases (n = 125) between January 2000 and September 2019. Histologic slides were reviewed for variables including tumor morphology and hormonal status. Additional clinical information was obtained from the electronic medical records.

Results: Of the 125 patients, 15 (12%) had ER positive tumors and 110 (88%) had ER negative tumors. Eleven (73%) ER positive tumors had ER positivity > 10% and 4 (27%) had ER positivity ≤ 10%. ER positive tumors had a smaller median tumor size of 2.5 cm, compared with ER negative tumors with median tumor size 3.05 cm, however this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.82). There were no statistical differences between ER positive and ER negative tumors in terms of histologic grade (P = 0.34), histologic subtype (P = 0.65), clinical stage (P>0.99) or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression (P = 0.29). There was also no difference in overall survival (OS) between ER positive and ER negative metaplastic breast cancers (HR = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.003-2.67, P = 0.39).

Conclusion: Our experience suggests that ER positivity has no prognostic relevance in MBC. Regardless of ER expression status, there were no statistically significant differences in overall survival between ER positive and ER negative MBC.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Breast cancer survival; ER positive metaplastic breast carcinoma; Estrogen Receptor Positive metaplastic breast cancer; Estrogen receptor; Hormone receptor positive metaplastic breast cancer; Metaplastic breast carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest All Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this manuscript.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma showing ER positivity > 10% (40X magnification).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma showing ER positivity ≤ 10% (40X magnification).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma with chondroid differentiation (40X magnification).
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma with rhabdoid differentiation (40X magnification).
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma with osteoid differentiation (40X magnification).
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma with osteoclastic-type giant cells (40X magnification).
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma with squamous cell carcinoma (40X magnification).
Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.
Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma with poorly differentiated spindle cells (40X magnification).
Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.
Kaplan-Meier curve of overall survival (OS) by estrogen receptor (ER) status.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Reis-Filho JS, Lakhani SR, Gobbi H, et al., Metaplastic carcinoma, in: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ (Eds.), World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the Breast, IARC, Lyon, France, 2012, pp. 48–52.
    1. Weigelt B, Eberle C, Cowell CF, et al., Metaplastic breast carcinoma: more than a special type, Nat. Rev. Cancer 14 (3) (2014) 147–148. - PubMed
    1. Huvos AG, Lucas JC Jr, Foote FW Jr, Metaplastic breast carcinoma. Rare form of mammary cancer, NY State J. Med. 73 (1973), 10781082. - PubMed
    1. McCart Reed AE, Kalaw E, Nones K, et al., Phenotypic and molecular dissection of metaplastic breast cancer and the prognostic implications, J. Pathol. 247 (2) (2019) 214–227. - PubMed
    1. Morgan E, Suresh A, Ganju A, et al., Assessment of outcomes and novel immune biomarkers in metaplastic breast cancer: a single institution retrospective study, World J. Surg. Oncol. 18 (1) (2020) 11, 10.1186/s12957-019-1780-8. Published 2020 Jan 14. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances