Min SK, et al. J Breast Cancer. 2020 Sep;24:e4. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2021.24.e4

Ryu JM, et al. J Breast Cancer. 2023 Apr;26:e17. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2023.26.e17

Jung JJ, et al. J Breast Cancer. 2024 Feb;27:e8. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2023.0265

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients are more likely to have BRCA1/2 mutations, with a prevalence rate of about 10–20%. Although several studies have analyzed the oncologic outcomes between BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers, the impact on breast cancer patients is still unclear. A retrospective review was performed to determine the long-term outcomes of TNBC patients, focusing on the impact of BRCA1/2 mutations. A total of 953 TNBC patients who underwent primary breast cancer surgery from June 2008 to January 2016 were included. We examined long-term outcomes, including contralateral breast cancer (CBC) incidence, recurrence patterns, and survival rates over a median follow-up of 80.9 months (range 3–152 months). 122 patients (12.8%) had BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were significantly younger at diagnosis and more likely to have a family history of breast/ovarian cancer. CBC incidence at 60, 120, and 150 months was significantly higher in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers compared to non-carriers (P = 0.0250, 0.0063, and 0.0184, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in disease-free survival, overall survival, breast cancer-specific survival, or distant-metastasis-free survival between the two groups. BRCA1/2 mutation status was a significant risk factor for CBC (HR = 6.242, P < 0.0001). Interestingly, among 29 patients with CBC recurrence, 24 patients (82.8%) had recurring TNBC subtype and among the CBC recurrence patients, 19 patients (65.5%) resumed chemotherapy. In the TNBC subtype, appropriate genetic testing and counseling are pivotal for surgical decisions like risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). Furthermore, long-term surveillance is warranted, especially in BRCA1/2 carriers who did not receive RRM.

Ryu JM, et al. J Breast Cancer. 2025 May;28:e18. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2025.0030

Background: Metaplastic breast cancer (MpBC) is an aggressive histologic type of breast cancer. Although MpBC has a poor prognosis and is responsible for a large proportion of breast cancer mortalities, the clinical features of MpBC compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) are not well known, and the optimal treatment has not been identified. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 155 MpBC patients and 16,251 IDC cases who underwent breast cancer surgery in a single institution between January 1994 and December 2019. The two groups were matched 1:4 by age, tumor size, nodal status, hormonal receptor status, and HER2 status using propensity-score matching (PSM). Finally, 120 MpBC patients were matched with 478 IDC patients. Disease-free survival and overall survival of MpBC and IDC patients both before and after PSM were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival, and multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to identify variables affecting long-term prognosis. Results: The most common subtype of MpBC was triple-negative breast cancer, and nuclear and histologic grades were higher than those of IDC. Pathologic nodal staging of the metaplastic group was significantly lower than that of the ductal group, and more frequent adjuvant chemotherapy was performed in the metaplastic group. Multivariable Cox regression analysis indicated that MpBC was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (HR = 2.240; 95% CI, 1.476–3.399, p = 0.0002) and overall survival (HR = 1.969; 95% CI, 1.147–3.382, p = 0.0140). However, survival analysis revealed no significant difference between MpBC and IDC patients in disease-free survival (HR = 1.465; 95% CI, 0.882–2.432, p = 0.1398) or overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.542; 95% confidential interval (CI), 0.875–2.718, p = 0.1340) after PSM. Conclusion: Although the MpBC histologic type had poor prognostic factors compared with IDC, it can be treated according to the same principles as aggressive IDC.