Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32504034›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2020

Invasive apocrine carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathologic features and comprehensive genomic profiling of 18 pure triple-negative apocrine carcinomas.

Xiangjie Sun, Ke Zuo, Qianlan Yao, Shuling Zhou, Ruohong Shui, Xiaoli Xu, Rui Bi, Baohua Yu, Yufan Cheng, Xiaoyu Tu and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Rare Breast Cancers Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Xiangjie Sun *Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Ke Zuo *Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7512-7968
Qianlan YaoDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Shuling ZhouDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Ruohong ShuiDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoli XuDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Rui BiDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Baohua YuDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Yufan ChengDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoyu TuDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Hongfen LuDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Wentao YangDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China. yangwt2000@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pure invasive apocrine carcinoma is a rare type of primary breast cancer, constituting ~1% of all breast cancers. Since most pure invasive apocrine carcinomas are triple negative, the lack of targeted therapies for triple-negative breast cancer has fostered efforts to discover actionable molecular targets in these tumors. In this study, we analyzed the clinicopathologic characteristics and comprehensive genomic profiling of 18 patients with pure triple-negative apocrine carcinomas (TNACs) using a 324-gene panel assay (FoundationOne CDx). The median age of these patients was 55.5 years, and the postmenopausal status rate was 77.8%. In total, 83.3% of patients were diagnosed with histological grade II, and 16.7% were diagnosed with grade III. The majority of patients presented at an early tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage (I: 38.9%; II: 50.0%; and III: 11.1%). The mean Ki-67 index was 9.7%, and the percent of PD-L1 positivity was 11.7%. With a median follow-up period of 76.5 months, one patient died, and two experienced distant metastases. There were 61 clinically relevant genomic alterations among all 18 pure TNACs, and the mean tumor mutation burden (TMB) was 3 Mut/Mb. The top ranked altered genes were PIK3CA (72.2%), PTEN (33.3%) and TP53 (27.8%). There were four novel mutations found in PTEN and an actionable rearrangement involving FGFR2-TACC2 that has not been reported in breast cancer before. In total, 88.9%, 50%, 44.4%, and 16.7% of TNACs had at least one clinically relevant genomic alteration in genes involved in the PI3K/mTOR, cell cycle, RAS/RAF/MEK and growth factor receptor-related pathways, respectively. All patients had at least one clinically relevant genomic alteration, and 94.4% had at least one actionable alteration. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest genomic sequencing cohort of pure TNACs. Incorporation of comprehensive genomic profiling into TNACs might shed light on potential therapeutic opportunities for both targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGene FusionGene RearrangementMutationTranscriptomeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.