ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Variations in histopathological and molecular subtypes between primary breast carcinoma and associated liver metastatic lesions.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Evidence suggests that histopathological features and molecular subtypes influence the prognosis of breast carcinoma; however, their roles in liver metastatic breast cancer remain unclear. This study aimed to compare histopathological characteristics and molecular subtypes between primary breast tumors and paired liver metastases, and to evaluate their prognostic significance. Methods: This retrospective study included 41 patients with liver metastatic breast cancer. Histopathological re-evaluation was performed for paired primary tumors and liver metastases, including tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), lymph node (LN) status, and molecular subtype. Clinical data and liver progression-free survival (LPFS) were also analyzed. Patients were stratified according to LPFS ≤60 months and LPFS >60 months. Results: Patients with LPFS ≤60 months showed higher rates of LVI and positive LN metastasis in primary tumors than those with LPFS >60 months. Liver metastases from patients with shorter LPFS had a higher proportion of grade 3 tumors. Tumor grade increased in liver metastases compared with primary tumors, with grade 3 tumors accounting for 56.1% of metastases versus 22.0% of primary tumors. Overall, 39.0% of cases showed grade progression, whereas 24.4% showed molecular subtype changes. Molecular subtype composition remained largely unchanged between primary and metastatic lesions. Discussion: Histopathological discordance, particularly grade progression between primary tumors and liver metastases, may provide additional prognostic stratification beyond conventional baseline tumor characteristics. These findings highlight the importance of re-biopsy and dynamic pathological reassessment of metastatic lesions, which may directly influence therapeutic decision-making in metastatic breast cancer. Comprehensive pathological evaluation of liver metastases is recommended to guide prognosis assessment and treatment strategies.
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.