
==== Front
Breast Cancer Res Treat
Breast Cancer Res Treat
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
0167-6806
1573-7217
Springer US New York

39090418
7431
10.1007/s10549-024-07431-6
Review
Receptor Discordance in Metastatic Breast Cancer; a review of clinical and genetic subtype alterations from primary to metastatic disease
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2267-2022
Dowling Gavin P. gavindowling@rcsi.com

123
Keelan Stephen 23
Cosgrove Nicola S. 2
Daly Gordon R. 23
Giblin Katie 23
Toomey Sinead 1
Hennessy Bryan T. 1
Hill Arnold D. K. 23
1 https://ror.org/01hxy9878 grid.4912.e 0000 0004 0488 7120 Medical Oncology Lab, Department of Molecular Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
2 https://ror.org/01hxy9878 grid.4912.e 0000 0004 0488 7120 The Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
3 https://ror.org/043mzjj67 grid.414315.6 0000 0004 0617 6058 The Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
1 8 2024
1 8 2024
2024
207 3 471476
19 8 2023
2 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Purpose

Receptor and subtype discordance between primary breast tumours and metastases is a frequently reported phenomenon. The aim of this article is to review the current evidence on receptor discordance in metastatic breast cancer and to explore the benefit of performing a repeat biopsy in this context.

Methods

Searches were undertaken on PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov for relevant publications and trials.

Conclusion

The current guidelines recommend offering to perform a biopsy of a metastatic lesion to evaluate receptor status. The choice of systemic therapy in metastatic disease is often based on the receptor status of the primary lesion. As therapeutic decision making is guided by subtype, biopsy of the metastatic lesion to determine receptor status may alter treatment. This article discusses discordance rates, the mechanisms of receptor discordance, the effect of discordance on treatment and survival outcomes, as well as highlighting some ongoing clinical trials in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast cancer
Metastases
Receptor discordance
Subtype switching
Intrinsic molecular subtype
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI)Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium

issue-copyright-statement© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide. Despite advances in treatment, approximately 30% of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer develop metastases during their lifetime [1]. Breast cancer is subtyped into different molecular groups based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing for the expression of the two hormone receptors: estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) along with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue samples taken from core biopsy of the primary breast tumour [2, 3]. The ER, PR and HER2 status of the tumour are used to individualise treatment strategies in breast cancer [4]. The choice of systemic therapy in metastatic disease is often based on the receptor status of the primary lesion. However, discordances between the receptor status of the primary tumour and metastases occur [5–9]. As therapeutic decision making is guided by subtype, biopsy of the metastatic lesion to determine receptor status may alter treatment [10, 11]. Thus, current guidelines recommend offering biopsy of a metastatic lesion to evaluate receptor status [4, 12–14]. This review will discuss the rates of receptor discordance and its clinical significance.

Discordance rates

Receptor discordance in metastatic breast cancer describes the phenomena where the ER, PR or HER2 receptor status of the primary tumour subtype has changed when re-testing is performed by immunohistochemistry on the biopsy of corresponding metastatic tumour tissue. Receptor discordance between primary breast cancer and metastases has been investigated in two independent meta-analyses [6, 15]. Aurilio et al. evaluated the discordance rates for ER, PR and HER2 receptors in a total of 9926 tumours across 48 studies. The pooled discordance proportions for ER, PR and HER2 receptors were 20%, 33% and 8%, respectively [6]. A similar meta-analysis performed by Schrijver et al. had comparable results, with discordance rates analysed in 6118 tumours across 39 studies. They reported the pooled discordances rates for ER, PR and HER2 receptors as 19.3%, 30.9% and 10.3%, respectively. This study also reported the direction of conversion, as well as location-specific differences between metastases. The positive-to-negative conversion rates for ER, PR and HER2 were 22.5%, 49.4% and 21.3%, respectively. The negative-to-positive conversion rates for ER, PR and HER2 were 21.5%, 15.9% and 9.5%, respectively. In addition, ER discordance rates were higher in bone (29.3%) and brain (20.8%) than in liver (14.3%) metastases. PR discordance rates were higher in liver (47%) and bone (42.7%) than in brain (23.3%) metastases. No statistically significant differences were observed in HER2 discordance rates between metastatic sites [15].

Intrinsic molecular subtype switching

In addition to receptor discordance by ER, PR and HER2 IHC status, several next generation sequencing (NGS) studies have also reported frequent intrinsic molecular subtype switching in breast cancer [16–20]. Intrinsic molecular subtyping is typically assigned using the PAM50 gene expression based classifier on RNA sequencing data from breast tumours [21, 22]. The intrinsic molecular subtypes are Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-enriched (HER2-E), basal-like and normal-like. Some studies have reported the clinical subtype by IHC does not completely overlap with the intrinsic molecular subtype by NGS indicating that subtype switching may be more frequent than if only reporting on receptor discordance by IHC [16, 20, 23].

Cejalvo et al. performed targeted gene expression profiling of 123 paired primary and metastatic tumours enriched for skin, lymph node, liver and bone metastases [17]. The rate of intrinsic subtype switching identified was 55.3% in Luminal A, 30% in Luminal B, 23.1% in HER2-E and 0% in basal-like tumours. Similar to ER and PR IHC status discordance rates, subtype switching was more frequent in Luminal type tumours with 40.2% of Luminal A switched to Luminal B while 14.3% of Luminal A/B switched to HER2-E tumours. In a larger more recent NGS study of paired primary tumours and early-course (de novo) metastases enriched for liver, lymph node, skin and soft tissue metastases, Afitmos et al. reported intrinsic subtyping switching occurred in 36% of cases with most Luminal A primary breast tumours changing subtype with metastatic disease [16]. Comparable Luminal A to Luminal B or HER2-E subtype switching rates have been reported in gene expression studies of breast cancer site specific metastases including bone or brain metastases. Priedigkeit et al. had reported in ~ 36% (4/11) cases of ER+ breast cancer Luminal A to Luminal B intrinsic subtype switching in bone metastasis [24]. In breast cancer brain metastases, recurrent gene expression losses in ESR1 (ER) and gene expression gains in ERBB2 (HER2) have been attributed to Luminal (ER+) intrinsic subtype switching [18, 19]. Consistent with this, Cosgrove et al. reported intrinsic molecular subtype switching from primary breast to brain metastases for 27% (12/45) of cases, with 8 Luminal A patients switching to either Luminal B, HER2-E or basal-like subtype; 2 patients switching from normal-like or Luminal B to HER2-E and 2 patients with HER2-E or Luminal A to basal-like subtype [20].

Effect of discordance on treatment and survival outcomes

There is conflicting data in the literature with regards to alterations in management and the survival benefit of performing a repeat biopsy of metastases. The majority of studies examining this benefit are small retrospective analyses with variability in laboratory techniques and definitions of recurrence [11, 25–27]. To address these limitations, two independent prospective studies were carried out—the DESTINY study[28] and the BRITS study [29]. A pooled analysis of these studies evaluated the clinical impact of performing biopsy of metastatic breast cancer, specifically assessing the proportion of patients who underwent a change in management based on the biopsy results [30]. Of the 289 patients who underwent biopsy of the metastasis, 14.2% had a change in management based on the results. However, these studies failed to definitively assess the effect altering treatment had on patient outcomes, and only the DESTINY trial collected data on overall survival (OS). Receptor discordance was not significantly associated with differences in OS, if treatment was modified accordingly (median OS 27.7 months vs. 30.2 months in the concordant and discordant groups, respectively). Retrospective studies have reported worse survival outcomes in patients with receptor discordance [9, 31, 32], however this may be because of inappropriate targeted therapy in discordant cases. A recent meta-analysis investigating the prognostic significance of receptor discordance showed that a loss of either ER or PR in recurrent tumours was significantly associated with worsened OS [33]. Further large prospective studies with sufficient follow up on treatment response and survival are necessary to determine the true clinical significance of repeat biopsy for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Mechanisms of receptor discordance

There are many possible aetiologies for receptor discordance between the primary tumour and metastasis. It has been debated whether this discordance is due to technical diagnostic issues or reflects a true biological phenomenon, and it is likely a combination of both. Firstly, technical causes must be considered, as variability occurs in the accuracy and duplicability of IHC staining [34]. Significant variations are more often described in bone metastases, at least to some degree due to the technical issues related to decalcification, which may impact on the reliability of the IHC assessment. In addition, different sampling methods, for example fine needle aspiration or core biopsy versus surgical resection of the tumour, may contribute to discordant receptor results [11, 26, 35]. Furthermore, studies based on next generation sequencing have revealed that both intra-tumour and inter-tumour heterogeneity are of greater incidence than previously thought [36]. This supports the hypothesis that receptor discordance may be evidence of clonal genome evolution [6, 37–39]. Tumour heterogeneity may also be attributable to selective pressure of therapy inducing clonal selection with the evolution of a novel tumour cell clone [40–42], or small undetected subclones in the primary tumour that only become apparent with metastatic progression [6, 39]. In a prospective study by Hilton et al., a substantial ER discordance rate was reported between the primary tumour and metastases, but there was complete concordance among metastases arising from numerous bone sites, hinting at the existence of a dominant clone dividing from the primary tumour [43]. Biological drift is another possible explanation, as newly acquired biological characteristics in the tumour microenvironment may facilitate metastatic dissemination by enabling tumour cells to travel via the circulatory and lymphatic systems [44, 45].

Studies investigating molecular determinants of intrinsic molecular subtype switching between matched primary breast and metastatic tumour samples have been severely limited [16, 46, 47]. Given that receptor discordance and intrinsic molecular subtyping occurs most significantly in Luminal type tumours, most of these studies have focused on molecular mechanisms of ER subtype switching. ER-HER2 receptor bidirectional molecular pathway cross-talk has been largely reported in the context of endocrine or anti-HER2 therapy resistance in hormone receptor (HR) and HER2-positive breast cancer [48]. It has been proposed that a change in subtype for Luminal type tumours may be as a consequence of this ER-HER2 receptor cross-talk, where ER expression can limit PI3K pathway activity affecting HER2 pathway activation, whilst HER2 overexpression, largely due to copy number amplification, can lead to loss of ER gene expression. Epigenomic, transcriptomic or genomic analysis of Luminal type primary breast tumours which metastasize have proposed loss of ESR1 (ER) gene expression due to either ESR1 (ER) hypermethylation [18], basal-like molecular features such as TP53 and/or PIK3CA mutations [16] or increased expression of FGFR4 [46] and activation of corresponding growth factor signalling pathways may be associated with Luminal A/B to HER2-enriched subtype switching.

Effect of treatment on discordance

Treatment exposure may induce receptor expression loss between the primary tumour and metastasis. This may be through a direct effect [49, 50] or as a result of clonal selection [40, 42]. For example, in line with the description of ER-HER2 receptor cross-talk above, ER and HER2 may alternate as the “dominant” pathway with either endocrine or anti-HER2 targeted therapy, where selective eradication of ER/PR positive cells by hormonal therapy could result in a population of ER/PR negative cells that could subsequently metastasise [51]. In addition to this, the impact of HER2-targeted therapy on HER2 receptor conversion has been investigated. Niikura et al. found that HER2 discordance rates differed significantly based on whether patients received chemotherapy but not based on whether the patients received trastuzumab [52]. However, other authors have not found neoadjuvant chemotherapy or trastuzumab to be associated with significant changes of HER2 status between primary and metastatic breast cancer [29, 53, 54]. The ChangeHER trial included 491 metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer cases treated with pertuzumab and/or T-DM1. This study found a HER2-positivity gain in 20.7% of cases, with some evidence of longer median OS in these patients, although at a not fully statistically significant extent [55].

Future perspectives

Liquid biopsy

Repeat biopsies are often technically difficult, invasive, costly, and limited by the fact that they provide information on mutations present only at a given time and site. A potential alternative for biopsy of metastatic lesions is the minimally invasive “liquid biopsy”, with genomic alterations of the tumour characterised by parallel sequencing of circulating cell-free tumour DNA (cfDNA) [56, 57] or circulating tumour cells (CTCs) [58]. These methods also attempt to tackle the heterogeneity of breast cancer as the cfDNA and CTCs stem from all malignant lesions within the body. While many studies have supported these methods [59–61], they are expensive and technically challenging. Additionally, CTCs may represent a different proportion of cells from the bulk metastatic tissue. Thus, serial blood samples provide an interesting alternative to repeat biopsies of metastatic lesions, however further research is needed to fully determine their potential.

Ongoing trials

In an attempt to improve our understanding of the genetic aberrations in metastatic breast cancer, the AURORA trial was established [62]. In this large global study, high coverage targeted gene and RNA sequencing are performed on matched primary and metastatic samples to investigate tumour heterogeneity, clonal evolution, and transcriptional changes. Initial results of the trial found that over half of the patients had molecular changes that could be matched with existing targeted therapies, highlighting the potential benefit of molecular screening in metastatic breast cancer [63]. Ongoing trials, such as SAFIR02 (NCT02299999) [64] and Alliance A071701 (NCT03994796)[65], are investigating the benefit of genetic testing to guide treatment in metastatic breast cancer. The SAFIR02 Breast trial explores using genome analysis as a therapeutic decision tool, which aims at comparing a targeted treatment administered according to identified molecular abnormalities with maintenance chemotherapy [64]. The Alliance trial investigates the benefit of genetic testing in guiding treatment for patients with any solid tumours that have metastasised to the brain using targeted therapies [65].

Conclusion

Receptor and subtype discordance between primary breast tumours and metastases is common. This article reviews the current evidence on the rate of clinical and intrinsic molecular subtype discordance, its clinical significance in terms of management and outcomes, and provides an insight into the future perspectives for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Abbreviations

cfDNA Cell free tumour DNA

CTCs Circulating tumour cells

ER Estrogen receptor

FFPE Formalin fixed paraffin embedded

HER2-E Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-enriched

HER2 Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

HR Hormone receptor

IHC Immunohistochemistry

NGS Next generation sequencing

OS Overall survival

PR Progesterone receptor

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Conceptualisation: GPD, SK, ADKH. Literature search and analysis: GPD, NC. Original draft: GPD. Critically reviewed and edited: GPD, SK, NC, GRD, KG, ST, BH, ADKH. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Funding

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. This research was funded by the RCSI Bons Secours Hospital Dublin StAR MD programme 2022.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. O'Shaughnessy J Extending survival with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer Oncologist 2005 10 S3 20 29 10.1634/theoncologist.10-90003-20 16368868
O’Shaughnessy J (2005) Extending survival with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 10(S3):20–29. 10.1634/theoncologist.10-90003-2016368868
2. Hammond ME American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2010 28 16 2784 2795 10.1200/jco.2009.25.6529 20404251
Hammond ME et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(16):2784–2795. 10.1200/jco.2009.25.652920404251
3. Wolff AC Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clinical practice guideline focused update J Clin Oncol 2018 36 20 2105 2122 10.1200/jco.2018.77.8738 29846122
Wolff AC et al (2018) Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol 36(20):2105–2122. 10.1200/jco.2018.77.873829846122
4. Van Poznak C Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on systemic therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline J Clin Oncol 2015 33 24 2695 2704 10.1200/jco.2015.61.1459 26195705
Van Poznak C et al (2015) Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on systemic therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 33(24):2695–2704. 10.1200/jco.2015.61.145926195705
5. Krøigård AB Larsen MJ Thomassen M Kruse TA Molecular concordance between primary breast cancer and matched metastases Breast J 2016 22 4 420 430 10.1111/tbj.12596 27089067
Krøigård AB, Larsen MJ, Thomassen M, Kruse TA (2016) Molecular concordance between primary breast cancer and matched metastases. Breast J 22(4):420–430. 10.1111/tbj.1259627089067
6. Aurilio G A meta-analysis of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 discordance between primary breast cancer and metastases Eur J Cancer 2014 50 2 277 289 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.004 24269135
Aurilio G et al (2014) A meta-analysis of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 discordance between primary breast cancer and metastases. Eur J Cancer 50(2):277–289. 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.00424269135
7. Sperduto PW Estrogen/progesterone receptor and HER2 discordance between primary tumor and brain metastases in breast cancer and its effect on treatment and survival Neuro Oncol 2020 22 9 1359 1367 10.1093/neuonc/noaa025 32034917
Sperduto PW et al (2020) Estrogen/progesterone receptor and HER2 discordance between primary tumor and brain metastases in breast cancer and its effect on treatment and survival. Neuro Oncol 22(9):1359–1367. 10.1093/neuonc/noaa02532034917
8. Hulsbergen AFC Subtype switching in breast cancer brain metastases: a multicenter analysis Neuro Oncol 2020 22 8 1173 1181 10.1093/neuonc/noaa013 31970416
Hulsbergen AFC et al (2020) Subtype switching in breast cancer brain metastases: a multicenter analysis. Neuro Oncol 22(8):1173–1181. 10.1093/neuonc/noaa01331970416
9. Lindström LS Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression J Clin Oncol 2012 30 21 2601 2608 10.1200/jco.2011.37.2482 22711854
Lindström LS et al (2012) Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2601–2608. 10.1200/jco.2011.37.248222711854
10. Lu Y Tong Y Chen X Shen K Association of Biomarker Discrepancy and Treatment Decision, Disease Outcome in Recurrent/Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Front Oncol 2021 11 638619 10.3389/fonc.2021.638619 34277399
Lu Y, Tong Y, Chen X, Shen K (2021) Association of Biomarker Discrepancy and Treatment Decision, Disease Outcome in Recurrent/Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients. Front Oncol 11:638619. 10.3389/fonc.2021.63861934277399
11. McAnena PF Breast cancer subtype discordance: impact on post-recurrence survival and potential treatment options BMC Cancer 2018 18 1 203 10.1186/s12885-018-4101-7 29463223
McAnena PF et al (2018) Breast cancer subtype discordance: impact on post-recurrence survival and potential treatment options. BMC Cancer 18(1):203. 10.1186/s12885-018-4101-729463223
12. Gradishar WJ Breast Cancer, version 32020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2020 18 4 452 478 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0016
Gradishar WJ et al (2020) Breast Cancer, version 32020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 18(4):452–478. 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0016
13. Cardoso F 5th ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 5) Ann Oncol 2020 31 12 1623 1649 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.010 32979513
Cardoso F et al (2020) 5th ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 5). Ann Oncol 31(12):1623–1649. 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.01032979513
14. Duffy MJ Clinical use of biomarkers in breast cancer: Updated guidelines from the European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM) Eur J Cancer 2017 75 284 298 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.017 28259011
Duffy MJ et al (2017) Clinical use of biomarkers in breast cancer: Updated guidelines from the European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM). Eur J Cancer 75:284–298. 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.01728259011
15. Schrijver W Suijkerbuijk KPM van Gils CH van der Wall E Moelans CB van Diest PJ Receptor Conversion in Distant Breast Cancer Metastases: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J Natl Cancer Inst 2018 110 6 568 580 10.1093/jnci/djx273 29315431
Schrijver W, Suijkerbuijk KPM, van Gils CH, van der Wall E, Moelans CB, van Diest PJ (2018) Receptor Conversion in Distant Breast Cancer Metastases: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 110(6):568–580. 10.1093/jnci/djx27329315431
16. Aftimos P Genomic and Transcriptomic Analyses of Breast Cancer Primaries and Matched Metastases in AURORA, the Breast International Group (BIG) Molecular Screening Initiative Cancer Discov 2021 11 11 2796 2811 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-1647 34183353
Aftimos P et al (2021) Genomic and Transcriptomic Analyses of Breast Cancer Primaries and Matched Metastases in AURORA, the Breast International Group (BIG) Molecular Screening Initiative. Cancer Discov 11(11):2796–2811. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-164734183353
17. Cejalvo JM Intrinsic subtypes and gene expression profiles in primary and metastatic breast cancer Cancer Res 2017 77 9 2213 2221 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2717 28249905
Cejalvo JM et al (2017) Intrinsic subtypes and gene expression profiles in primary and metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res 77(9):2213–2221. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-271728249905
18. Varešlija D Transcriptome characterization of matched primary breast and brain metastatic tumors to detect novel actionable targets JNCI 2019 111 4 388 398 10.1093/jnci/djy110 29961873
Varešlija D et al (2019) Transcriptome characterization of matched primary breast and brain metastatic tumors to detect novel actionable targets. JNCI 111(4):388–398. 10.1093/jnci/djy11029961873
19. Priedigkeit N Intrinsic subtype switching and acquired ERBB2/HER2 amplifications and mutations in breast cancer brain metastases JAMA Oncol 2017 3 5 666 671 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5630 27926948
Priedigkeit N et al (2017) Intrinsic subtype switching and acquired ERBB2/HER2 amplifications and mutations in breast cancer brain metastases. JAMA Oncol 3(5):666–671. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.563027926948
20. Cosgrove N Mapping molecular subtype specific alterations in breast cancer brain metastases identifies clinically relevant vulnerabilities Nat Commun 2022 13 1 202 10.1038/s41467-022-27987-5 35017484
Cosgrove N et al (2022) Mapping molecular subtype specific alterations in breast cancer brain metastases identifies clinically relevant vulnerabilities. Nat Commun 13(1):202. 10.1038/s41467-022-27987-535017484
21. Perou CM Molecular portraits of human breast tumours Nature 2000 406 6797 747 752 10.1038/35021093 10963602
Perou CM et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752. 10.1038/3502109310963602
22. Sorlie T Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001 98 19 10869 10874 10.1073/pnas.191367098 11553815
Sorlie T et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874. 10.1073/pnas.19136709811553815
23. Cheang MC Defining breast cancer intrinsic subtypes by quantitative receptor expression Oncologist 2015 20 5 474 482 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0372 25908555
Cheang MC et al (2015) Defining breast cancer intrinsic subtypes by quantitative receptor expression. Oncologist 20(5):474–482. 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-037225908555
24. Priedigkeit N Exome-capture RNA sequencing of decade-old breast cancers and matched decalcified bone metastases JCI Insight 2017 2 17 8 10.1172/jci.insight.95703
Priedigkeit N et al (2017) Exome-capture RNA sequencing of decade-old breast cancers and matched decalcified bone metastases. JCI Insight 2(17):8. 10.1172/jci.insight.95703
25. Zidan J Dashkovsky I Stayerman C Basher W Cozacov C Hadary A Comparison of HER-2 overexpression in primary breast cancer and metastatic sites and its effect on biological targeting therapy of metastatic disease Br J Cancer 2005 93 5 552 556 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602738 16106267
Zidan J, Dashkovsky I, Stayerman C, Basher W, Cozacov C, Hadary A (2005) Comparison of HER-2 overexpression in primary breast cancer and metastatic sites and its effect on biological targeting therapy of metastatic disease. Br J Cancer 93(5):552–556. 10.1038/sj.bjc.660273816106267
26. Simmons C Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases? Ann Oncol 2009 20 9 1499 1504 10.1093/annonc/mdp028 19299408
Simmons C et al (2009) Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases? Ann Oncol 20(9):1499–1504. 10.1093/annonc/mdp02819299408
27. Gong Y Han EY Guo M Pusztai L Sneige N Stability of estrogen receptor status in breast carcinoma: a comparison between primary and metastatic tumors with regard to disease course and intervening systemic therapy Cancer 2011 117 4 705 713 10.1002/cncr.25506 20939012
Gong Y, Han EY, Guo M, Pusztai L, Sneige N (2011) Stability of estrogen receptor status in breast carcinoma: a comparison between primary and metastatic tumors with regard to disease course and intervening systemic therapy. Cancer 117(4):705–713. 10.1002/cncr.2550620939012
28. Amir E Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2012 30 6 587 592 10.1200/jco.2010.33.5232 22124102
Amir E et al (2012) Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(6):587–592. 10.1200/jco.2010.33.523222124102
29. Thompson AM Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS) Breast Cancer Res 2010 12 6 R92 10.1186/bcr2771 21059212
Thompson AM et al (2010) Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Res 12(6):R92. 10.1186/bcr277121059212
30. Amir E Tissue confirmation of disease recurrence in breast cancer patients: pooled analysis of multi-centre, multi-disciplinary prospective studies Cancer Treat Rev 2012 38 6 708 714 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.11.006 22178456
Amir E et al (2012) Tissue confirmation of disease recurrence in breast cancer patients: pooled analysis of multi-centre, multi-disciplinary prospective studies. Cancer Treat Rev 38(6):708–714. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.11.00622178456
31. Wilking U HER2 status in a population-derived breast cancer cohort: discordances during tumor progression Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011 125 2 553 561 10.1007/s10549-010-1029-2 20628810
Wilking U et al (2011) HER2 status in a population-derived breast cancer cohort: discordances during tumor progression. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125(2):553–561. 10.1007/s10549-010-1029-220628810
32. Liedtke C Prognostic impact of discordance between triple-receptor measurements in primary and recurrent breast cancer Ann Oncol 2009 20 12 1953 1958 10.1093/annonc/mdp263 19596702
Liedtke C et al (2009) Prognostic impact of discordance between triple-receptor measurements in primary and recurrent breast cancer. Ann Oncol 20(12):1953–1958. 10.1093/annonc/mdp26319596702
33. Shiino S Prognostic significance of receptor expression discordance between primary and recurrent breast cancers: a meta-analysis Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022 191 1 1 14 10.1007/s10549-021-06390-6 34613502
Shiino S et al (2022) Prognostic significance of receptor expression discordance between primary and recurrent breast cancers: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 191(1):1–1434613502
34. Allred DC Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada Oncologist 2008 13 11 1134 1136 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0184 18987048
Allred DC (2008) Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada. Oncologist 13(11):1134–1136. 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-018418987048
35. Yonemori K Immunohistochemical profiles of brain metastases from breast cancer J Neurooncol 2008 90 2 223 228 10.1007/s11060-008-9654-x 18648908
Yonemori K et al (2008) Immunohistochemical profiles of brain metastases from breast cancer. J Neurooncol 90(2):223–228. 10.1007/s11060-008-9654-x18648908
36. Venur VA Cohen JV Brastianos PK Targeting molecular pathways in intracranial metastatic disease Front Oncol 2019 9 99 10.3389/fonc.2019.00099 30886831
Venur VA, Cohen JV, Brastianos PK (2019) Targeting molecular pathways in intracranial metastatic disease. Front Oncol 9:99. 10.3389/fonc.2019.0009930886831
37. Shipitsin M Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity Cancer Cell 2007 11 3 259 273 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.01.013 17349583
Shipitsin M et al (2007) Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Cell 11(3):259–273. 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.01.01317349583
38. Navin N Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing Nature 2011 472 7341 90 94 10.1038/nature09807 21399628
Navin N et al (2011) Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 472(7341):90–94. 10.1038/nature0980721399628
39. Criscitiello C Biopsy confirmation of metastatic sites in breast cancer patients: clinical impact and future perspectives Breast Cancer Res 2014 16 2 205 10.1186/bcr3630 25032257
Criscitiello C et al (2014) Biopsy confirmation of metastatic sites in breast cancer patients: clinical impact and future perspectives. Breast Cancer Res 16(2):205. 10.1186/bcr363025032257
40. Karlsson E Appelgren J Solterbeck A Bergenheim M Alvariza V Bergh J Breast cancer during follow-up and progression: a population based cohort on new cancers and changed biology Eur J Cancer 2014 50 17 2916 2924 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.08.014 25241230
Karlsson E, Appelgren J, Solterbeck A, Bergenheim M, Alvariza V, Bergh J (2014) Breast cancer during follow-up and progression: a population based cohort on new cancers and changed biology. Eur J Cancer 50(17):2916–2924. 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.08.01425241230
41. Pertschuk LP Axiotis CA Feldman JG Kim YD Karavattayhayyil SJ Braithwaite L Marked intratumoral heterogeneity of the proto-oncogene Her-2/neu determined by three different detection systems Breast J 1999 5 6 369 374 10.1046/j.1524-4741.1999.97088.x 11348316
Pertschuk LP, Axiotis CA, Feldman JG, Kim YD, Karavattayhayyil SJ, Braithwaite L (1999) Marked intratumoral heterogeneity of the proto-oncogene Her-2/neu determined by three different detection systems. Breast J 5(6):369–374. 10.1046/j.1524-4741.1999.97088.x11348316
42. Mittendorf EA Loss of HER2 amplification following trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant systemic therapy and survival outcomes Clin Cancer Res 2009 15 23 7381 7388 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-1735 19920100
Mittendorf EA et al (2009) Loss of HER2 amplification following trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant systemic therapy and survival outcomes. Clin Cancer Res 15(23):7381–7388. 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-173519920100
43. Hilton JF Acquisition of metastatic tissue from patients with bone metastases from breast cancer Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011 129 3 761 765 10.1007/s10549-010-1264-6 21113656
Hilton JF et al (2011) Acquisition of metastatic tissue from patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129(3):761–765. 10.1007/s10549-010-1264-621113656
44. Chambers AF Naumov GN Vantyghem SA Tuck AB Molecular biology of breast cancer metastasis: clinical implications of experimental studies on metastatic inefficiency Breast Cancer Res 2000 2 6 400 407 10.1186/bcr86 11250733
Chambers AF, Naumov GN, Vantyghem SA, Tuck AB (2000) Molecular biology of breast cancer metastasis: clinical implications of experimental studies on metastatic inefficiency. Breast Cancer Res 2(6):400–407. 10.1186/bcr8611250733
45. Shah SP Mutational evolution in a lobular breast tumour profiled at single nucleotide resolution Nature 2009 461 7265 809 813 10.1038/nature08489 19812674
Shah SP et al (2009) Mutational evolution in a lobular breast tumour profiled at single nucleotide resolution. Nature 461(7265):809–813. 10.1038/nature0848919812674
46. Garcia-Recio S FGFR4 regulates tumor subtype differentiation in luminal breast cancer and metastatic disease J Clin Invest 2020 130 9 4871 4887 10.1172/JCI130323 32573490
Garcia-Recio S et al (2020) FGFR4 regulates tumor subtype differentiation in luminal breast cancer and metastatic disease. J Clin Invest 130(9):4871–4887. 10.1172/JCI13032332573490
47. Vareslija D Transcriptome characterization of matched primary breast and brain metastatic tumors to detect novel actionable targets J Natl Cancer Inst 2019 111 4 388 398 10.1093/jnci/djy110 29961873
Vareslija D et al (2019) Transcriptome characterization of matched primary breast and brain metastatic tumors to detect novel actionable targets. J Natl Cancer Inst 111(4):388–398. 10.1093/jnci/djy11029961873
48. Giuliano M Trivedi MV Schiff R Bidirectional crosstalk between the estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 signaling pathways in breast cancer: molecular basis and clinical implications Breast Care 2013 8 4 256 262 10.1159/000354253 24415978
Giuliano M, Trivedi MV, Schiff R (2013) Bidirectional crosstalk between the estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 signaling pathways in breast cancer: molecular basis and clinical implications. Breast Care 8(4):256–262. 10.1159/00035425324415978
49. Broom RJ Changes in estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Her-2/neu status with time: discordance rates between primary and metastatic breast cancer Anticancer Res 2009 29 5 1557 1562 19443366
Broom RJ et al (2009) Changes in estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Her-2/neu status with time: discordance rates between primary and metastatic breast cancer. Anticancer Res 29(5):1557–156219443366
50. Thomson AH Changing molecular profile of brain metastases compared with matched breast primary cancers and impact on clinical outcomes Br J Cancer 2016 114 7 793 800 10.1038/bjc.2016.34 26908328
Thomson AH et al (2016) Changing molecular profile of brain metastases compared with matched breast primary cancers and impact on clinical outcomes. Br J Cancer 114(7):793–800. 10.1038/bjc.2016.3426908328
51. Kurbel S Selective reduction of estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer occurrence by estrogen receptor modulators supports etiological distinction between ER positive and ER negative breast cancers Med Hypotheses 2005 64 6 1182 1187 10.1016/j.mehy.2004.09.026 15823713
Kurbel S (2005) Selective reduction of estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer occurrence by estrogen receptor modulators supports etiological distinction between ER positive and ER negative breast cancers. Med Hypotheses 64(6):1182–1187. 10.1016/j.mehy.2004.09.02615823713
52. Niikura N Loss of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression in metastatic sites of HER2-overexpressing primary breast tumors J Clin Oncol 2012 30 6 593 599 10.1200/jco.2010.33.8889 22124109
Niikura N et al (2012) Loss of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression in metastatic sites of HER2-overexpressing primary breast tumors. J Clin Oncol 30(6):593–599. 10.1200/jco.2010.33.888922124109
53. Xiao C Gong Y Han EY Gonzalez-Angulo AM Sneige N Stability of HER2-positive status in breast carcinoma: a comparison between primary and paired metastatic tumors with regard to the possible impact of intervening trastuzumab treatment Ann Oncol 2011 22 7 1547 1553 10.1093/annonc/mdq623 21239403
Xiao C, Gong Y, Han EY, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Sneige N (2011) Stability of HER2-positive status in breast carcinoma: a comparison between primary and paired metastatic tumors with regard to the possible impact of intervening trastuzumab treatment. Ann Oncol 22(7):1547–1553. 10.1093/annonc/mdq62321239403
54. Vincent-Salomon A HER2 status in patients with breast carcinoma is not modified selectively by preoperative chemotherapy and is stable during the metastatic process Cancer 2002 94 8 2169 2173 10.1002/cncr.10456 12001113
Vincent-Salomon A et al (2002) HER2 status in patients with breast carcinoma is not modified selectively by preoperative chemotherapy and is stable during the metastatic process. Cancer 94(8):2169–2173. 10.1002/cncr.1045612001113
55. Pizzuti L The prognostic relevance of HER2-positivity gain in metastatic breast cancer in the ChangeHER trial Sci Rep 2021 11 1 13770 10.1038/s41598-021-92774-z 34215766
Pizzuti L et al (2021) The prognostic relevance of HER2-positivity gain in metastatic breast cancer in the ChangeHER trial. Sci Rep 11(1):13770. 10.1038/s41598-021-92774-z34215766
56. Schwarzenbach H Circulating nucleic acids as biomarkers in breast cancer Breast Cancer Res 2013 15 5 211 10.1186/bcr3446 24090167
Schwarzenbach H (2013) Circulating nucleic acids as biomarkers in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 15(5):211. 10.1186/bcr344624090167
57. Forshew T Noninvasive identification and monitoring of cancer mutations by targeted deep sequencing of plasma DNA Sci Transl Med 2012 4 136 136 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003726
Forshew T et al (2012) Noninvasive identification and monitoring of cancer mutations by targeted deep sequencing of plasma DNA. Sci Transl Med 4(136):136. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003726
58. Polzer B Molecular profiling of single circulating tumor cells with diagnostic intention EMBO Mol Med 2014 6 11 1371 1386 10.15252/emmm.201404033 25358515
Polzer B et al (2014) Molecular profiling of single circulating tumor cells with diagnostic intention. EMBO Mol Med 6(11):1371–1386. 10.15252/emmm.20140403325358515
59. Pestrin M Heterogeneity of PIK3CA mutational status at the single cell level in circulating tumor cells from metastatic breast cancer patients Mol Oncol 2015 9 4 749 757 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.12.001 25539732
Pestrin M et al (2015) Heterogeneity of PIK3CA mutational status at the single cell level in circulating tumor cells from metastatic breast cancer patients. Mol Oncol 9(4):749–757. 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.12.00125539732
60. Rothé F Plasma circulating tumor DNA as an alternative to metastatic biopsies for mutational analysis in breast cancer Ann Oncol 2014 25 10 1959 1965 10.1093/annonc/mdu288 25185240
Rothé F et al (2014) Plasma circulating tumor DNA as an alternative to metastatic biopsies for mutational analysis in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 25(10):1959–1965. 10.1093/annonc/mdu28825185240
61. De Mattos-Arruda L Capturing intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity by de novo mutation profiling of circulating cell-free tumor DNA: a proof-of-principle Ann Oncol 2014 25 9 1729 1735 10.1093/annonc/mdu239 25009010
De Mattos-Arruda L et al (2014) Capturing intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity by de novo mutation profiling of circulating cell-free tumor DNA: a proof-of-principle. Ann Oncol 25(9):1729–1735. 10.1093/annonc/mdu23925009010
62. G. Breast International, T. Breast European Adjuvant Studies, S. Frontier, and I. Technology Research Foundation (2021) AURORA: Aiming to Understand the Molecular Aberrations in Metastatic Breast Cancer
63. Aftimos PG First report of AURORA, the breast international group (BIG) molecular screening initiative for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (pts) Ann Oncol 2019 30 48 10.1093/annonc/mdz100.003
Aftimos PG et al (2019) First report of AURORA, the breast international group (BIG) molecular screening initiative for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (pts). Ann Oncol 30:48. 10.1093/annonc/mdz100.003
64. Unicancer ARC Fondation, and AstraZeneca (2022) SAFIR02_Breast—efficacy of genome analysis as a therapeutic decision tool for patients with metastatic breast cancer
65. O Alliance for Clinical Trials in, I. National Cancer, and I. Genentech (2024) Genetic testing in guiding treatment for patients with brain metastases
