Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33898990›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology advances

Systematic review and meta-analysis of breast cancer brain metastasis and primary tumor receptor expression discordance.

Rupesh Kotecha, Raees Tonse, Muni Rubens, Michael W McDermott, Yazmin Odia, Haley Appel, Minesh P Mehta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Ki-67 correlations in breast cancer.Journal of medicine and life · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Genomic and immune profiling of breast cancer brain metastases.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Case ofWorld journal of oncology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Rupesh KotechaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6927-0402
Raees TonseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA.
Muni RubensOffice of Clinical Research, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA.
Michael W McDermottHerbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.
Yazmin OdiaHerbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.
Haley AppelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA.
Minesh P MehtaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChange in hormone receptor (estrogen [ER] and progesterone [PR]) and/or human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) status during the evolutionary course of metastatic breast cancer and the effect of tumor classification subtype switching remain understudied and underappreciated in brain metastasis patients.

methodsUsing preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of series published prior to April 2020 obtained from the Medline database of biopsied or resected breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) was performed. Weighted random effects models were used to calculate pooled estimates.

results15 full-text articles were included with receptor expression analyses on 1373 patients who underwent biopsy or resection of at least one intracranial lesion to compare to the primary tumor. Primary tumor receptor expression immunophenotypes were 45.0% ER+, 41.0% ER-, 31.0% PR+, 51.0% PR-, 35% HER2+, and 47.0% HER2-. Corresponding BCBM immunophenotypes were 19.0% ER+, 31.0% ER-, 13.0% PR+, 40.0% PR-, 21.0% HER2+, and 26.0% HER2-. On primary/BCBM comparison, 540 patients (42.6%) exhibited discordance in any receptor with 17.0% (95% CI: 13.0%-23.0%) discordant on ER, 23.0% (95% CI: 18.0%-30.0%) discordant on PR, and 12.0% (95% CI: 8.0%-16.0%) discordant on HER2 status. The most common receptor conversions found in BCBM were ER loss 11.0% (95% CI: 8.0%-16.0%), PR loss 15.0% (95% CI: 11.0%-21.0%), and HER2 gain 9.0% (95% CI: 7.0%-11.0%).

conclusionsBCBM exhibits significant receptor expression discordance in comparison to primary tumors in approximately 40% of patients. Classification patterns need to be analyzed to determine factors predictive of BCBM/primary tumor discordance. Overall, tumor subtype switching and its effect on clinical management remains underappreciated.

Indexed as

breast cancerdiscordanceestrogen receptorHER2progesterone receptor

Identifiers

PMID33898990
PMCPMC8055057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.