ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Synchronous primary breast invasive carcinoma and breast metastasis from high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: a case report and literature review.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast metastasis from high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma is rare, and its coexistence with a synchronous primary breast carcinoma is exceptionally uncommon. Distinguishing metastatic ovarian carcinoma from primary breast carcinoma is clinically important because treatment strategies and prognosis differ substantially. Case presentation: We report a 48-year-old premenopausal woman who presented with pleural effusion, abdominal distension, bilateral adnexal masses, multiple breast nodules, and systemic lymphadenopathy. Pathological examination of the pelvic lesion supported high-grade serous carcinoma, whereas breast biopsy demonstrated two morphologically distinct adenocarcinoma components. Immunohistochemical profiling, including breast-lineage markers and Müllerian/ovarian markers, supported the coexistence of primary breast invasive carcinoma and metastatic ovarian carcinoma involving the breast. Intervention and outcome: The patient was diagnosed with FIGO stage IVB high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma with breast, pleural, peritoneal, and lymph node involvement, synchronous with primary breast carcinoma. She received neoadjuvant paclitaxel plus carboplatin and achieved a partial response, followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, additional chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab, breast tumor excision, and maintenance therapy with fluzoparib plus bevacizumab. At the last follow-up on December 20, 2025, no evidence of disease progression was observed. Conclusion: This case highlights the diagnostic difficulty of breast lesions in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Morphology combined with an appropriate immunohistochemical panel is essential for distinguishing primary breast carcinoma from metastatic ovarian carcinoma. Multidisciplinary evaluation and genetic assessment should be considered in similar cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.