
==== Front
Cancer Biol Med
Cancer Biol Med
CBM
Cancer Biology & Medicine
2095-3941
Compuscript Ireland

j.issn.2095-3941.2024.0222
10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2024.0222
Editorial
Evolving molecular subtyping of breast cancer advances precision treatment
Shan Rui 12*
Dai Lei-Jie 12*
Shao Zhi-Ming 12
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3699-2630
Jiang Yi-Zhou 12
1 Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China
2 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
Correspondence to: Yi-Zhou Jiang, E-mail: yizhoujiang@fudan.edu.cn
*These authors contributed equally to this work.

15 9 2024
19 9 2024
21 9 731739
17 6 2024
09 8 2024
Copyright: © 2024 The Authors
2024
The Authors
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
==== Body
pmcBreast cancer is the second most prevalent cancer globally. In 2022, approximately 2.3 million newly diagnosed cases of female breast cancer occurred worldwide, and more than 665 thousand people lost their lives to this disease1.

Understanding of breast cancer began with clinical observations and pathological assessments. Various histologic types, sizes, nodal status, metastasis, grades, and stages predict different clinical outcomes and influence the selection of treatment options. In addition, molecular profiling offers another approach for classifying breast malignancies, thus enabling exploration of the biological factors underlying cancer development. Because each subtype is characterized by distinct oncogenic features that promote breast cancer onset and progression, targeting these biological processes has provided new opportunities for precision treatment. Consequently, molecular subtyping has become an integral and indispensable aspect of breast cancer taxonomy, and is critical in diagnosing breast cancer and determining subsequent precise systemic treatment.

This editorial provides an overview of advancements in molecular subtyping for breast cancer with evolving molecular profiling methods, and ongoing efforts to integrate leading-edge subtyping concepts into precise clinical practice. We hope that this editorial will inspire researchers and medical professionals to recognize the importance of molecular classification and effectively apply these insights to clinical work.

From receptor-based subtyping to comprehensive molecular subtyping of breast cancer

On the basis of the status of the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR/PR), and human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 (HER2, also known as Erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2, ERBB2), breast tumors are generally classified into 3 receptor-based subtypes: hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, HER2-positive breast cancer, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with HR+ tumors should be treated with endocrine therapy, whereas patients with HER2+ tumors should receive targeted therapy with anti-HER2 agents2. However, the lack of feasible molecular targets has resulted in a preference for less specific chemotherapy as a systemic treatment option for TNBC2. Although the use of the traditional 3-class classification according to receptor status has increased patient survival over the past several decades, several challenges persist in enhancing patient prognosis3.

To better determine the molecular landscape of breast cancer and identify potentially actionable targets, transcriptomic profiling was first used to systemically reveal the complexity of breast cancer. This technique provides a new perspective for stratifying patients beyond clinicopathological assessments, and enables the administration of treatment strategies with enhanced precision.

The first systemic analysis of transcriptomic molecular subtypes was performed by Perou and colleagues4,5, who robustly constructed a clinically relevant classification system of intrinsic subtypes. After a decade, the intrinsic subtypes—widely known as luminal A, luminal B, Erb-B2 overexpression, and basal-like—were officially used by the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for guiding systemic treatment2,6. Although molecular profiling to determine the intrinsic subtype can delineate the disease with enhanced accuracy, more affordable surrogate molecular subtyping has been widely used in clinical practice. This surrogate approach is based on immunohistochemical measurements of ER, PgR, Ki-67, and HER2, together with evaluation of recurrence risk through multigene expression assays (if available)6, and involves the following subtypes: (1) luminal A-like, (2) luminal B-like (HER2 negative), (3) luminal B-like (HER2 positive), (4) HER2 positive (non-luminal), and (5) triple negative (ductal).

The rapid advancement of high-throughput technologies at lower cost has enabled large-scale, comprehensive, and multi-layer molecular profiling of breast cancer extending beyond gene expression. The Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) conducted an integrated analysis of approximately 2,000 breast cancer cases, including both genomic and transcriptomic data for novel biological subgroups7. Breast cancer was classified into 10 integrative clusters, each characterized by unique patterns of copy number alterations. A study based on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) invasive breast cancer dataset has further characterized the molecular landscape by using data generated from 6 platforms including DNA copy number arrays, DNA methylation, exome sequencing, messenger RNA arrays, microRNA sequencing and reverse-phase protein arrays8. That study has provided new insights into the multi-level characterization of breast cancer, thereby comprehensively revealing the heterogeneity of breast cancer.

These integrative analyses have incorporated genomic information and phenotypic variations into the intrinsic subtypes, thus providing an effective method for molecular typing of breast cancer and paving the way to further in-depth studies.

Subclassification of receptor-based subtypes

Clinical diagnosis and treatment based on receptor-based subtypes and intrinsic molecular subtypes have achieved substantial success. The current focus of molecular profiling of breast cancer is on deciphering the heterogeneity within each receptor-based subtype. Thus, while retaining previously effective treatments, new drugs targeting newly revealed therapeutic targets can further enhance treatment effectiveness and provide clinical translation value.

TNBC subclassification

TNBCs make up approximately 15% of all breast cancers and are usually associated with younger age; these cancers are prone to early recurrence and metastasis9. The existing treatment options for unselected patients with TNBC have limited efficacy: 70% of patients with TNBC do not survive 5 years after diagnosis10. Additionally, TNBC is not a single disease but a heterogeneous entity with different subtypes11. Consequently, substantial efforts have focused on molecular subtyping of TNBC to identify subtype-specific treatment approaches (Table 1).

Table 1 Comprehensive molecular subtyping of TNBCs suggests subtype-specific treatment strategies

Features	Molecular subtypes	Gene expression signatures	Subtype specific genomic variations	Candidate targets	Survival	
Lehmann et al. TNBCtype-612 and Bareche et al.14	
Lehmann et al. TNBCtype-612
 ① Included primarily gene expression profiling.
 ② Classified TNBC cell lines into subtypes to provide models for studies.	Basal-like 1 (BL1)	Elevated expression of genes associated with the cell cycle and DNA damage response

	Mutations: most genomically instable subtype with highest TP53 mutation rate (92%)

CNAs: high copy number gains for PPAR1, KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA; high copy-number deletion for genes involved in DNA repair mechanisms

	DNA damaging agents, such as PARP inhibitors and cisplatin

MEK1/2 inhibitors

PI3K/AKT inhibitors

	-	
Lehmann et al. TNBCtype-413
 ① Performed 4-subtype classification based solely on the gene expression characteristics of tumor cells. The IM subtype was a biomarker independent of classification.	Basal-like 2 (BL2)	Reclassified as others according to Bareche et al.

	-		-	
Luminal androgen receptor (LAR)	High activity of androgen receptor signaling pathway

High expression of AR genes and proteins

	Mutations: most distinct mutational profile; high mutational burden with PI3KCA (55%), AKT1 (13%), and CDH1 (13%)

CNAs: gain/amplification of EGFR and AKT1; loss of CDKN2A/B, CCND3, and AKT2

	Bicalutamide

PI3K/AKT inhibitors

CDK4/6 inhibitors

	A worse outcome in the univariate and the multivariate analysis

	
Bareche et al.14
 ① Analyzed specific genomic variations within TNBC molecular subtypes according to Lehmann subtyping.	Immunomodulatory (IM)	Enrichment in genes involved in immune cell processes

High expression of immune signatures and checkpoint inhibitor genes such as PD1, PDL1, and CTLA4

	-	Immune checkpoint inhibitors

	A better outcome in the multivariate analysis

	
Mesenchymal (M)	Upregulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and growth factor pathway

High signature score for angiogenesis

Activation of EGFR and Notch signaling pathways

	CNAs: gain/amplification of DNMT3A and TP53; loss of PDGFRA, RB1, and MAP3K1

	Src antagonist in combination with PI3K inhibitor

EGFR inhibitors

	Lower RFS than BL1 and IM

	
Mesenchymal stem-like (MSL)	Similar to the M subtype

Enrichment in genes associated with stem cells

Overexpression of PDGFR and VEGFR

	Mutations: significantly diminished mutational burden

	Src antagonist in combination with PI3K inhibitor

CDK4/6 inhibitors

Antiangiogenic therapy

	Higher RFS than the M subtype

	
Burstein et al.15	
① Integrated both RNA and DNA profiling to identify 4 stable, molecularly defined TNBC subtypes.	Basal-like immunosuppressed (BLIS)	Downregulation of genes controlling B cell, T cell, and natural killer cell functions, and cytokine pathways

VTCN1 overexpression

	FGFR2 amplification

	SOX inhibitors

Immune-based strategies (antibodies to PD1 or VTCN1)

	Poorest for DFS and DSS

	
Basal-like immune-activated (BLIA)	Upregulation of genes controlling B cell, T cell, and natural killer cell functions

Activation of STAT transcription factor–mediated pathways

CTLA4 overexpression

	CDK1 amplification

	STAT inhibitors

Antibodies to cytokines or cytokine receptors

CTLA4 inhibitor

	Best for DFS and DSS

	
Luminal androgen receptor (AR; LAR)	AR, ER, prolactin, and ErbB4 signaling

Expression of ESR1 and other estrogen-regulated genes

AR and MUC1 overexpression

	Greatest subtype-specific CNV between LAR and the remaining 3 subtypes

12p13.2 (MAGOHB) is less amplified than other subtypes

1q13.3 (CCND1) and 14q21.3 (MDGA2) amplification

	AR antagonists

MUC1 vaccines

	-	
Mesenchymal (MES)	Characterized by cell cycle, mismatch repair, and DNA damage network, and hereditary breast cancer signaling pathways

IGF1, ADRB2, EDNRB, PTGER3/4, PTGFR, and PTGFRA expression

	EGFR amplification

	β-blockers, IGF inhibitors, or PDGFR inhibitors

	-	
Jiang et al.16	
① Integrated both RNA and DNA profiling.
② Performed the largest single-center multi-omics cohort of TNBC in an Asian population to date.	Basal-like and immune-suppressed (BLIS)	Upregulation of cell cycle genes

Activation of DNA repair genes

Downregulation of immune response genes

	Mutations: TP53 (77%), no other frequent mutation, enrichment in HRD mutation signature

CNAs: high chromosomal instability; frequent 9p23 and 12p13 amplification

	Low HRD score: escalated chemotherapy, intensive monitoring

High HRD score: platinum drugs

	Poor prognosis (5-year RFS, 84%)

	
Immunomodulatory (IM)	High immune cell signaling

High cytokine signaling

	Mutations: TP53 (81%); no other frequent mutation; enrichment in HRD mutation signature

CNAs: relatively high chromosomal instability

	Immune checkpoint inhibitors

	Good prognosis (5-year RFS, 94%)

	
Luminal androgen receptor (LAR)	Activation of androgen receptor signaling

	Mutations: TP53 (61%), PI3K-AKT pathway (~70%), and ERBB2 (9%)

CNAs: CDKN2A/B loss (RB1 neutral), 8p21 del, low-CIN, and low-HRD

	Endocrine therapy

Targeting ERBB2 and CDK4/6 inhibitors

	Poor prognosis (5-year RFS, 88%)

	
Mesenchymal-like (MES)	Enrichment in mammary stem cell pathways

	Mutation and copy-number profile between LAR and the other 2 groups

	Targeting CSCs; STAT3 inhibitor

	Poor prognosis (5-year RFS, 79%)

	
AR, androgen receptor; CDK, cyclin dependent kinase; CIN, chromosomal instability; CNA, copy number alteration; CNV, copy number variation; CSC, cancer stem cell; DFS, disease free survival; DSS, disease specific survival; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; HRD, homologous recombination deficiency; IGF, insulin-like growth factor; RFS, recurrence free survival; PARP, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase; PDGFR, platelet-derived growth factor receptor; PI3K, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase; SOX, sex determining region Y-related high-mobility group box; STAT, signal transducers and activators of transcription.

Lehmann subtyping

In 2011, Lehmann et al., in pioneering research, analyzed the gene expression profiles of 587 TNBC cases and identified 6 subtypes with individual biological characteristics, comprising, 2 basal-like subtypes (BL1 and BL2), an immunomodulatory subtype (IM), a mesenchymal subtype (M), a mesenchymal stem–like subtype (MSL), and a luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype12. The BL1 and BL2 subtypes are characterized by elevated expression of cell cycle and DNA damage response genes, which are potentially responsive to cisplatin-related agents. The M and MSL subtypes are distinguished by upregulation of epithelial–mesenchymal transition and growth factor pathways, and should be treated with Src/Abl inhibitors in combination with PI3K inhibitors. The LAR subtype is enriched in genes associated with androgen receptor signaling, and is uniquely sensitive to AR antagonists. Genes associated with immune processes are upregulated in the IM subtype.

Five years later, Lehmann refined the TNBC molecular subtypes from 6 to 4 (i.e., TNBCtype-4), comprising BL1, BL2, M, and LAR13. Each TNBCtype-4 subtype exhibits large differences in terms of age at diagnosis, histopathology, tumor grade, disease progression course, and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In another study14, Bareche et al. conducted a global replication of Lehmann’s TNBC classification in a cohort of 550 TNBCs from TCGA and METABRIC, thus demonstrating the ability to segment TNBC into 5 distinct and stable transcriptional subtypes: BL1, IM, LAR, M, and MSL. Furthermore, TNBC subtypes have been shown to exhibit unique somatic mutation profiles and copy number alteration profiles, particularly regarding specific driver cancer genes such as TP53 and PIK3CA. These findings have been instrumental in identifying potential targets for genomic-driven therapies for TNBC, thus offering hope for more personalized and effective treatment strategies in the future.

Burstein subtyping

In 2015, Burstein and colleagues15 conducted molecular profiling of 198 TNBC tumors, identified 4 TNBC subtypes, and confirmed their results by using external datasets. They clustered TNBC into 4 subtypes: LAR, mesenchymal (MES), basal-like immunosuppressed (BLIS), and basal-like immune-activated (BLIA). Each subtype has a distinct prognosis and specific targetable molecules, including AR and MUC1 for LAR; growth factor receptors for MES; immunosuppressive molecules for BLIS; and Stat signaling-associated molecules and cytokines for BLIA.

FUSCC subtyping

In 2019, Jiang et al. performed transcriptome-based clustering in the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) TNBC multi-omics cohort16, and classified TNBC into 4 subtypes: IM, LAR, MES, and BLIS. This cohort, consisting of 465 patients, is the largest single-center multi-omics cohort of TNBC in an Asian population to date.

On the basis of genomic and transcriptomic analysis, potential therapeutic subtype-specific targets have been identified. Compared with other TNBC subtypes, the LAR subtype shows enrichment in ERBB2-activating mutations, activating cell-cycle signaling, and androgen receptor overexpression, thus indicating potential sensitivity to HER2-targeting therapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, and AR inhibitors, respectively. Additionally, LAR is frequently observed in Asian patients, thus underscoring its importance. For the IM subtype, expression profiles have indicated enrichment in both immune-activated cells and immune-stimulating factors, thereby supporting the rationale for using immune checkpoint blockade to treat this subtype. The BLIS subtype, which has relatively poor prognosis and minimal immune activation, is further divided into high-homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and low-HRD subgroups according to HRD scores. The BLIS subgroup with high HRD scores might substantially benefit from treatment with DNA-damaging agents. However, patients in the low-HRD subgroup have poor prognosis, with a 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate of 73%. In the MES subtype, gene expression analysis has highlighted features associated with cancer stem cells, including JAK/STAT3 pathway activation for cancer stem cell maintenance. These findings suggest that STAT3 inhibitors might provide a promising therapeutic option for the MES subtype.

HR+/HER2− subclassification

The subclassification of HR+/HER2− breast cancer, in contrast to TNBC, remains an understudied area because of this cancer’s favorable prognosis with endocrine therapy17. Nevertheless, crucial problems remain, such as the persistent risk of long-term recurrence, resistance to endocrine therapy, and the precise administration of novel medications such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Given these challenges and HR+/HER2− breast cancer heterogeneity7,8, molecular profiling of this disease is imperative to develop novel subtype-specific precision treatment strategies. Recently, Jin et al., using multi-omics data for 579 patients, have classified HR+/HER2− breast cancer into 4 subtypes—cranial luminal (SNF1), immunogenic (SNF2), proliferative (SNF3), and receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)-driven (SNF4)—each with distinct biological and clinical characteristics18. The SNF subtypes have provided ideas for new therapeutic regimens for HR+/HER2− breast cancers. Endocrine therapy is likely to be most suitable for the SNF1 subtype, whereas SNF2 tumors are immune activated and consequently may be targeted by immune checkpoint blockade. The SNF3 subtype is potentially sensitive to CDK4/6 inhibitors and PARP inhibitors, because of its proliferative features and high homologous recombination deficiency scores, respectively. SNF4 tumors have the poorest outcomes among the 4 subtypes; these tumor cells are characterized by RTK pathway upregulation, thereby indicating sensitivity to RTK inhibitors.

HER2+ subclassification

Anti-HER2 targeted therapy has achieved remarkable success in treating HER2+ breast cancer. However, resistance to therapy is nonetheless observed, and revealing the heterogeneity within HER2+ breast cancer is essential. In 2016, Ferrari et al.19 conducted genome-wide RNA sequencing of 99 selected HER2+ breast tumors and clustered them into 4 subgroups: A, B, C, and D. In addition to the different degree of HER2 amplification among the four subtypes, each exhibited distinctive genomic features. Furthermore, Li et al.20, on the basis of a multi-omics cohort of 180 patients with HER2+ breast cancer, have proposed a four-subtype strategy and further suggested possible subtype-dependent precision treatment regimens with patient derived organoids: anti-HER2 targeted therapy for the classical HER2-enriched (HER2-CLA) subtype and the immunomodulatory (HER2-IM) subtype; standard targeted treatment with endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors for the luminal-like (HER2-LUM) subtype; and adjunct treatment with EGFR, PDGFR, or VEGFR inhibitors with anti-HER2 targeted therapy for the basal/mesenchymal-like subtype (HER2-BM). Molecular subtyping of HER2+ breast cancer has received relatively little attention, but accumulating evidence supports its benefits for patients with this type of breast cancer.

Molecular subtyping of breast cancer from bench to bedside

Clinical trials

Molecular profiling of breast cancer to discover new taxonomies is ultimately aimed at improving treatment efficacy and patient prognosis through precision-targeted therapy. Therefore, clinical trials are crucial in promoting the application of molecular subtyping.

Clinical trials have been designed to validate the effectiveness of precision treatment strategies, represented by a series of trials based on TNBC subclassification. Researchers from Spain21 have discovered that, according to Lehmann’s refined classification of TNBC, significant differences exist in the pathological complete response (pCR) rates of patients with TNBC treated with neoadjuvant carboplatin and docetaxel. In comparison to an overall pCR rate of 44.7%, the BL1 and BL2 subtypes had higher pCR rates of 65.6% and 47.5%, respectively, thus indicating that patients with BL subtypes might benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment. In addition, The TBCRC 023 study by Lehmann et al. has revealed enhanced clinical benefit with combined treatment with an AR antagonist and a PI3K inhibitor for AR+ TNBCs, particularly those classified as LAR subtype22.

The FUTURE studies performed by FUSCC are among the best-known series trials evaluating the efficacy of subtype-specific treatment strategies for TNBC. On the basis of FUSCC-TNBC subtypes, clinicians initially conducted the FUTURE umbrella clinical trial23. The final results indicated a 29.8% objective response rate for patients with advanced TNBC who had failed multiple lines of treatment. Among the 7 arms, the immune therapy arm (arm C) targeting the IM subtype achieved an objective response rate of 43.5%, surpassing the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy in such patients (10%–15%)23. By building on the promising results of the immunotherapy arm (arm C) in the FUTURE trial, researchers designed the FUTURE-C-Plus trial24. In that study, immunotherapy was prioritized as the first-line intervention, and the objective response rate notably increased, to 81.3%. In the subsequent FUTURE-SUPER trial25, Patients with TNBC received first-line therapies according to their molecular subtypes and genomic markers. The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the pooled subtyping-based group than the control group, thus demonstrating possible therapeutic benefits of optimizing treatment according to comprehensive molecular subtypes for patients with TNBC.

The efficacy of using the SNF subtypes of HR+/HER2− breast tumors to guide precise treatment is also being evaluated in BCTOP-L-M05 (NCT05594095), in which patients with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer who had previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors were recruited. After implementation of second-line and first-line clinical trials, the team is currently conducting a neoadjuvant platform trial based on molecular subtyping of breast cancers, including the FUSCC-TNBC subtypes and HR+/HER2− SNF subtypes (FASCINATE-N)26.

Feasible tools

Current molecular subtyping methods for breast cancer heavily rely on high-throughput molecular biological techniques. Cost-effective and convenient approaches have been developed to widely implement these advancements in breast cancer treatment. Consequently, researchers have begun to seek alternative methods for molecular subtyping through pathology and medical imaging.

For instance, a practical clinical IHC-based subtyping strategy based on 4 markers (AR, CD8, FOXC1, and DCLK1) was designed to identify FUSCC-TNBC subtypes27. This IHC-based classification approach for TNBC has demonstrated a significant correlation with transcriptome-based classifications, and has facilitated broader application of molecular subtyping in clinical practice.

Digital pathology involves the conversion of histopathological slides into digital formats through whole-slide scanners, for enhanced objective, quantitative analysis of the digitized images28. Artificial intelligence techniques have been applied to analyze digital images, thus making digital pathology an efficient tool for the molecular classification of breast cancer. Couture et al.29 have analyzed digital slides with deep learning to predict ER status, intrinsic subtypes (basal vs. nonbasal), and risk of recurrence score (ROR-PT), with a high overall accuracy of approximately 75%–80%. Jin et al.18 have developed convolutional neural network models based on digital pathology to infer HR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes (SNF1, SNF2, SNF3, and SNF4), which have been used in the FASCINATE-N trial and BCTOP-L-M05 trial.

Radiomics transforms radiographic images into multiple quantitative image features, such as shape, size, and textural patterns30. Recent progress in AI technology has significantly improved the ability to automatically measure and analyze patterns found in radiomics. Li et al.31 have characterized 91 breast tumors through quantitative radiomics. The image-based phenotypes were able to discriminate prognostic biomarkers, such as receptor status, and were able to predict breast cancer molecular subtypes. Su et al.32, on the basis of a breast cancer radiomic cohort of 860 patients, have successfully built a radiomic model for discriminating TNBC from other subtypes and further inferring molecular subtypes within TNBC. Additionally, radiomic features reflecting TNBC peritumoral heterogeneity among patients have prognostic value, and their associations with metabolic reprogramming and immune infiltration have been elucidated.

In summary, these results support a promising future of clinically applicable methods for the molecular classification of breast cancer, thus enhancing precision treatment.

Discussion and perspectives

The landscape of breast cancer treatment has been revolutionized by the advent of molecular profiling, which has shifted the therapeutic paradigm from a one-size-fits-all approach to subtype-specific precision therapy. In general, to implement molecular subtyping in clinical applications and improve treatment efficacy for patients with breast cancer, further efforts are necessary in the following areas.

Insights into the molecular nature of subtypes Further investigation of molecular subtypes may reveal novel actionable targets. For instance, given that metabolic reprogramming and immune escape are emerging hallmarks of malignancy33, analyzing the dysregulation of metabolism and the tumor microenvironment of breast cancer has substantial potential for identifying such targets. Gong et al.34 have elucidated the metabolic heterogeneity among TNBCs by classifying them into 3 metabolic pathway-based subtypes. Yang et al.35 have discovered that the combination of ferroptosis inducers with immune checkpoint inhibitors may serve as an innovative treatment strategy for LAR-like TNBCs, by reprogramming the tumor microenvironment.

Digital pathology, radiomics, and AI Both digital pathology and radiomics can acquire high-dimensional information. After modeling, in an ideal scenario, rapid molecular subtyping and further diagnosis may be achieved at lower cost. In developing models that link image features and molecular subtyping, AI is playing an increasingly integral role. Thus, development of AI models suitable in the medical field is urgently needed. Additionally, leveraging clinical information and molecular multi-omics data to enhance model interpretability would increase the credibility of the results and prevent erroneous medical decisions.

Noninvasive molecular subtyping Currently, the precise classification of breast cancer presents challenges because of the methods’ invasiveness, particularly for patients requiring frequent monitoring, such as those with advanced breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Noninvasive molecular subtyping is an emerging method that can enhance patient compliance with treatment and decrease patient discomfort. In addition to the use of radiomics as described above, the successful application of liquid biopsies in predicting molecular subtyping in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma36 suggests this method’s application potential in breast cancer.

Prospective clinical trials and translational studies Molecular subtyping of breast cancer can reveal potential biological events for clinical targeting, and may support the development of novel medications for currently undruggable targets. The value of the targets must be validated in prospective clinical trials. Translational studies based on clinical trials can further aid in the development of precise treatments and suggest new therapeutic methods to address drug resistance in patients receiving traditional one-size-fits-all therapies. In conclusion, a continuing need exists for a cycle of molecular subtyping in the laboratory—clinical trials or translational research—further refinement of subtyping a cycle, from molecular subtyping in the laboratory, followed by clinical trails or translational research, and then back to the laboratory for refinement of subtyping. In this way, the continually evolving molecular subtyping of breast cancer could better guide precision treatment for patients.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Yi-Zhou Jiang and Zhi-Ming Shao.

Wrote the paper: Rui Shan and Lei-Jie Dai.
==== Refs
References

1. Bray F Laversanne M Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Soerjomataram I Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2024 74 229 63 38572751
2. Harbeck N Gnant M Breast cancer Lancet 2017 389 1134 50 27865536
3. Cleator S Ashworth A Molecular profiling of breast cancer: clinical implications Br J Cancer 2004 90 1120 4 15026788
4. Perou CM Sørlie T Eisen MB van de Rijn M Jeffrey SS Rees CA Molecular portraits of human breast tumours Nature 2000 406 747 52 10963602
5. Sørlie T Perou CM Tibshirani R Aas T Geisler S Johnsen H Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 98 10869 74 11553815
6. Goldhirsch A Winer EP Coates AS Gelber RD Piccart-Gebhart M Thürlimann B Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013 Ann Oncol 2013 24 2206 23 23917950
7. METABRIC Group Curtis C Shah SP Chin SF Turashvili G Rueda OM The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups Nature 2012 486 346 52 22522925
8. The Cancer Genome Atlas Network Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours Nature 2012 490 61 70 23000897
9. Nolan E Lindeman GJ Visvader JE Deciphering breast cancer: from biology to the clinic Cell 2023 186 1708 28 36931265
10. Dent R Trudeau M Pritchard KI Hanna WM Kahn HK Sawka CA Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence Clin Cancer Res 2007 13 15 Pt 1 4429 34 17671126
11. Carey L Winer E Viale G Cameron D Gianni L Triple-negative breast cancer: disease entity or title of convenience? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010 7 683 92 20877296
12. Lehmann BD Bauer JA Chen X Sanders ME Chakravarthy AB Shyr Y Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies J Clin Invest 2011 121 2750 67 21633166
13. Lehmann BD Jovanović B Chen X Estrada MV Johnson KN Shyr Y Refinement of triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes: implications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy selection PLoS One 2016 11 e0157368 27310713
14. Bareche Y Venet D Ignatiadis M Aftimos P Piccart M Rothe F Unravelling triple-negative breast cancer molecular heterogeneity using an integrative multiomic analysis Ann Oncol 2018 29 895 902 29365031
15. Burstein MD Tsimelzon A Poage GM Covington KR Contreras A Fuqua SAW Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies novel subtypes and targets of triple-negative breast cancer Clin Cancer Res 2015 21 1688 98 25208879
16. Jiang YZ Ma D Suo C Shi J Xue M Hu X Genomic and transcriptomic landscape of triple-negative breast cancers: subtypes and treatment strategies Cancer Cell 2019 35 428 40.e5 30853353
17. Huppert LA Gumusay O Idossa D Rugo HS Systemic therapy for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early stage and metastatic breast cancer CA Cancer J Clin 2023 73 480 515 36939293
18. Jin X Zhou YF Ma D Zhao S Lin CJ Xiao Y Molecular classification of hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer Nat Genet 2023 55 1696 708 37770634
19. Ferrari A Vincent-Salomon A Pivot X Sertier AS Thomas E Tonon L A whole-genome sequence and transcriptome perspective on HER2-positive breast cancers Nat Commun 2016 7 12222 27406316
20. Li YW Ma D Wu XR Dai LJ Zhao S Xu YZ Abstract PS09-09: Multiomics profiling and molecular classification refine precision treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer Cancer Res 2024 84 9_Suppl PS09-09
21. Echavarria I López-Tarruella S Picornell A García-Saenz JÁ Jerez Y Hoadley K Pathological response in a triple-negative breast cancer cohort treated with neoadjuvant carboplatin and docetaxel according to Lehmann’s refined classification Clin Cancer Res 2018 24 1845 52 29378733
22. Lehmann BD Abramson VG Sanders ME Mayer EL Haddad TC Nanda R TBCRC 032 IB/II multicenter study: molecular insights to AR antagonist and PI3K inhibitor efficacy in patients with AR+ metastatic triple-negative breast cancer Clin Cancer Res 2020 26 2111 23 31822498
23. Liu Y Zhu XZ Xiao Y Wu SY Zuo WJ Yu Q Subtyping-based platform guides precision medicine for heavily pretreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: the FUTURE phase II umbrella clinical trial Cell Res 2023 33 389 402 36973538
24. Chen L Jiang YZ Wu SY Wu J Di GH Liu GY Famitinib with camrelizumab and nab-paclitaxel for advanced immunomodulatory triple-negative breast cancer (FUTURE-C-Plus): an open-label, single-arm, phase II trial Clin Cancer Res 2022 28 2807 17 35247906
25. Fan L Wang ZH Ma LX Wu SY Wu J Yu KD Optimising first-line subtyping-based therapy in triple-negative breast cancer (FUTURE-SUPER): a multi-cohort, randomised, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 2024 25 184 97 38211606
26. Zuo WJ Chen L Shen Y Wang ZH Liu GY Yu KD Rational and trial design of FASCINATE-N: a prospective, randomized, precision-based umbrella trial Ther Adv Med Oncol 2024 16 17588359231225032 38362377
27. Zhao S Ma D Xiao Y Li XM Ma JL Zhang H Molecular subtyping of triple-negative breast cancers by immunohistochemistry: molecular basis and clinical relevance Oncologist 2020 25 e1481 91 32406563
28. Ibrahim A Gamble P Jaroensri R Abdelsamea MM Mermel CH Chen PHC Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: techniques and applications Breast 2020 49 267 73 31935669
29. Couture HD Williams LA Geradts J Nyante SJ Butler EN Marron JS Image analysis with deep learning to predict breast cancer grade, ER status, histologic subtype, and intrinsic subtype NPJ Breast Cancer 2018 4 30 30182055
30. Bi WL Hosny A Schabath MB Giger ML Birkbak NJ Mehrtash A Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications CA Cancer J Clin 2019 69 127 57 30720861
31. Li H Zhu Y Burnside ES Huang E Drukker K Hoadley KA Quantitative MRI radiomics in the prediction of molecular classifications of breast cancer subtypes in the TCGA/TCIA data set NPJ Breast Cancer 2016 2 16012 27853751
32. Jiang L You C Xiao Y Wang H Su GH Xia BQ Radiogenomic analysis reveals tumor heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer Cell Rep Med 2022 3 100694 35858585
33. Hanahan D Weinberg RA Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation Cell 2011 144 646 74 21376230
34. Gong Y Ji P Yang YS Xie S Yu TJ Xiao Y Metabolic-pathway-based subtyping of triple-negative breast cancer reveals potential therapeutic targets Cell Metab 2021 33 51 64.e9 33181091
35. Yang F Xiao Y Ding JH Jin X Ma D Li DQ Ferroptosis heterogeneity in triple-negative breast cancer reveals an innovative immunotherapy combination strategy Cell Metab 2023 35 84 100.e8 36257316
36. Alig SK Shahrokh Esfahani M Garofalo A Li MY Rossi C Flerlage T Distinct Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes defined by noninvasive genomic profiling Nature 2024 625 778 87 38081297
