Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictive factors on outcomes in metaplastic breast cancer

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) is a rare, aggressive variant of breast cancer, with limited data available regarding treatment and outcomes. This study aims to review patients with MBC treated at our tertiary care institution with an emphasis on the role of treatment modality and histologic classification.

Methods

With IRB-approval, we queried our pathology database for patients with MBC diagnosis. All cases were re-evaluated by dedicated breast pathologists and confirmed as MBC breast cancer. Patient demographics, clinical/pathologic histology, and treatment were analyzed with respect to outcomes including local–regional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed to evaluate the impact on outcomes. Kaplan–Meier methods estimated survival.

Results

We evaluated 113 patients with MBC diagnosed between 2002 and 2013. Median age was 61 years and median pathologic tumor size 2.5 cm; 76 (67%) were ER/PR/Her2 negative, 83 (74%) grade 3. Median follow-up was 38 months. 47 (42%) underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT), 66 (58%) had mastectomy, 61 (54%) underwent adjuvant radiation (RT), and 85 (75%) had chemotherapy. At 2 and 5 years, the LRR/DM/OS rates were 12%/15%/90% and 21%/35%/69%, respectively. On Cox regression analysis, only adjuvant RT correlated with reduced LRR [RR 3.1 (1.13–9.88), p = 0.027], while chemotherapy, type of surgery, and T-N stage did not. Only T-stage (p = 0.008) correlated with DM, however chemotherapy, RT, surgery type, and N-stage were not. Univariate analysis demonstrated histologic subtype did not significantly correlate with local (p = 0.54) or distant (p = 0.83) disease control.

Conclusions

This study represents among the largest institutional experiences in the outcomes of MBC. At this time, there does not appear to be a clear histologic subset of MBC which has significantly different clinical outcomes from the other subtypes. Although limited in its sample size, this study shows RT remains important in local–regional control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66(1):7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fritz AG (2000) International classification of diseases for oncology: ICD-O, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva, p 240

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tzanninis IG et al (2016) Management and outcomes in metaplastic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 16(6):437–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leddy R et al (2012) Review of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: imaging findings and pathologic features. J Clin Imaging Sci 2:21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pezzi CM et al (2007) Characteristics and treatment of metaplastic breast cancer: analysis of 892 cases from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol 14(1):166–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pp R (2009) Rosen’s breast pathology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lakhani S, Ellis I, Schnitt S et al (2012) WHO classification of tumours of the breast, 4th edn. IARC, Lyon, pp 48–52

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wargotz ES, Deos PH, Norris HJ (1989) Metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. II. Spindle cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol 20(8):732–740

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Downs-Kelly E et al (2009) Matrix-producing carcinoma of the breast: an aggressive subtype of metaplastic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 33(4):534–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jung SY et al (2010) Worse prognosis of metaplastic breast cancer patients than other patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120(3):627–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lai HW et al (2013) The prognostic significance of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast (MCB)—a case controlled comparison study with infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Breast 22(5):968–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nelson RA et al (2015) Survival outcomes of metaplastic breast cancer patients: results from a US population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 22(1):24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rayson D et al (1999) Metaplastic breast cancer: prognosis and response to systemic therapy. Ann Oncol 10(4):413–419

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Song Y et al (2013) Unique clinicopathological features of metaplastic breast carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma and poor prognostic indicators. World J Surg Oncol 11:129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rakha EA et al (2017) Immunoprofile of metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. Histopathology 70(6):975–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cimino-Mathews A et al (2016) A clinicopathologic analysis of 45 patients with metaplastic breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 145(3):365–372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rakha EA et al (2015) Prognostic factors in metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: a multi-institutional study. Br J Cancer 112(2):283–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McKinnon E, Xiao P (2015) Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 139(6):819–822

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang Y et al (2015) Clinicopathological features and prognosis of metaplastic breast carcinoma: experience of a major chinese cancer center. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0131409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hammond ME et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(7):e48–e72

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wolff AC et al (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elston CW, Ellis IO (2002) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 41(3A):154–161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bae SY et al (2011) The prognoses of metaplastic breast cancer patients compared to those of triple-negative breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126(2):471–478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Beatty JD et al (2006) Metaplastic breast cancer: clinical significance. Am J Surg 191(5):657–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Luini A et al (2007) Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast, an unusual disease with worse prognosis: the experience of the European Institute of Oncology and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101(3):349–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Oberman HA (1987) Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast. A clinicopathologic study of 29 patients. Am J Surg Pathol 11(12):918–929

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wargotz ES, Norris HJ (1990) Metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. IV. Squamous cell carcinoma of ductal origin. Cancer 65(2):272–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Chuthapisith S et al (2013) Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast with transformation from adenosquamous carcinoma to osteosarcomatoid and spindle cell morphology. Oncol Lett 6(3):728–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Prat A et al (2010) Phenotypic and molecular characterization of the claudin-low intrinsic subtype of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 12(5):R68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang Y, Toy KA, Kleer CG (2012) Metaplastic breast carcinomas are enriched in markers of tumor-initiating cells and epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Mod Pathol 25(2):178–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Esbah O et al (2012) Metaplastic breast carcinoma: case series and review of the literature. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13(9):4645–4649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen IC et al (2011) Lack of efficacy to systemic chemotherapy for treatment of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast in the modern era. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(1):345–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Brown-Glaberman U, Graham A, Stopeck A (2010) A case of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast responsive to chemotherapy with Ifosfamide and Etoposide: improved antitumor response by targeting sarcomatous features. Breast J 16(6):663–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shah DR, Tseng WH, Martinez SR (2012) Treatment options for metaplastic breast cancer. ISRN Oncol 2012:706162

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Abouharb S, Moulder S (2015) Metaplastic breast cancer: clinical overview and molecular aberrations for potential targeted therapy. Curr Oncol Rep 17(3):431

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

    C. Marc Leyrer, Camille A. Berriochoa, Shree Agrawal, Alana Donaldson, Benjamin C. Calhoun, Chirag Shah, Robyn Stewart, Halle C. F. Moore & Rahul D. Tendulkar

Authors
  1. C. Marc Leyrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Camille A. Berriochoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shree Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alana Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin C. Calhoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chirag Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Robyn Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Halle C. F. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rahul D. Tendulkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Marc Leyrer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Chirag Shah is a scientific consultant with Impedimed Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leyrer, C.M., Berriochoa, C.A., Agrawal, S. et al. Predictive factors on outcomes in metaplastic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165, 499–504 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4367-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4367-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation