Association Between Immunohistochemical Profile and Radiographic Presentation of Breast Cancer Skeletal Metastases
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Clinical Data
2.2. Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
2.3. Immunohistochemistry
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics
3.2. Immunohistochemistry
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022, 72, 7–33. [Google Scholar]
- Heer, E.; Harper, A.; Escandor, N.; Sung, H.; McCormack, V.; Fidler-Benaoudia, M.M. Global burden and trends in premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer: A population-based study. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e1027–e1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Zhu, W.; Biskup, E.; Yang, W.; Yang, Z.; Wang, H.; Qiu, X.; Zhang, C.; Hu, G.; Hu, G. Incidence, risk factors and prognostic characteristics of bone metastases and skeletal-related events (SREs) in breast cancer patients: A systematic review of the real-world data. J. Bone Oncol. 2018, 11, 38–50. [Google Scholar]
- Łukaszewski, B.; Naza, J.; Goch, M.; Łukaszewska, M.; Stępiński, A.; Jurczyk, M.U. Diagnostic methods for detection of bone metastases. Contemp. Oncol. 2017, 21, 98–103. [Google Scholar]
- Mirels, H. Metastatic disease in long bones. A proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1989, 249, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, C.G.; DiPaola, C.P.; Ryken, T.C.; Bilsky, M.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Berven, S.H.; Harrop, J.S.; Fehlings, M.G.; Boriani, S.; Chou, D.; et al. A Novel Classification System for Spinal Instability in Neoplastic Disease: An Evidence-Based Approach and Expert Consensus From the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine 2010, 35, E1221–E1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, R.W.; Suva, L.J. Hallmarks of Bone Metastasis. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2018, 102, 141–151. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.; Wang, R.; Zeng, F.; Zhao, J.; Peng, S.; Ma, Y.; Chen, S.; Ding, S.; Zhong, L.; Guo, W.; et al. Impact of molecular subtypes on metastatic behavior and overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A single-center study combined with a large cohort study based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Oncol. Lett. 2020, 20, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Li, J.; Zhu, S.; Wu, J.; Chen, C.; Liu, Q.; Wei, W.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, S. Breast cancer subtypes predict the preferential site of distant metastases: A SEER based study. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 27990–27996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, N.L.; Bell, J.; Heidel, R.; Lee, S.; Vanmeter, S.; Duncan, L.; Munsey, B.; Panella, T.; Orucevic, A. Prognostic value of breast cancer subtypes, Ki-67 proliferation index, age, and pathologic tumor characteristics on breast cancer survival in Caucasian women. Breast J. 2013, 19, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, S.Y.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, H.C.; Lee, S.K.; Kil, W.H.; Kim, S.W.; Lee, J.E.; Nam, S.J. Poor prognosis of single hormone receptor- positive breast cancer: Similar outcome as triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajkovic, S. Skeletne metastaze karcinoma dojke–uticaj hormonskih i HER2 receptora. Med. Podml. 2024, 75, 24–28. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, M.E.; Hayes, D.F.; Dowsett, M.; Allred, D.C.; Hagerty, K.L.; Badve, S.; Fitzgibbons, P.L.; Francis, G.; Goldstein, N.S.; Hayes, M.; et al. 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, 2784–2795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolff, A.C.; Hammond, M.E.; Hicks, D.G.; Dowsett, M.; McShane, L.M.; Allison, K.H.; Allred, D.C.; Bartlett, J.M.; Bilous, M.; Fitzgibbons, P.; et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor two testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 3997–4013. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Holdaway, I.M.; Bowditch, J.V. Variation in receptor status between primary and metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 1983, 52, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindström, L.S.; Karlsson, E.; Wilking, U.M.; Johansson, U.; Hartman, J.; Lidbrink, E.K.; Hatschek, T.; Skoog, L.; Bergh, J. 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, 2601–2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindstrom, L.; Howell, S.; Astrom, G. Controversies in the management of metastatic breast cancer: Biologic evaluation of breast cancer–should metastases be biopsied? In American Society of Clinical Oncology 2010 Educational Book; American Society of Clinical Oncology: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2010; pp. e7–e12. [Google Scholar]
- Başdelioğlu, K. Bone metastasis: Evaluation of 1100 patients with breast cancer. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2021, 14, 338–347. [Google Scholar]
- Scholzen, T.; Gerdes, J. The Ki-67 protein: From the known and the unknown. J. Cell. Physiol. 2000, 182, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowsett, M.; Nielsen, T.O.; A’Hern, R.; Bartlett, J.; Coombes, C.R.; Jack Cuzick, J.; Ellis, M.; Henry, N.L.; Hugh, J.C.; Lively, T.; et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2011, 103, 1656–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashmi, A.A.; Hashmi, K.A.; Irfan, M.; Khan, S.M.; Edhi, M.M.; Ali, J.P.; Hashmi, S.K.; Asif, H.; Faridi, N.; Khan, A. Ki67 index in intrinsic breast cancer subtypes and its association with prognostic parameters. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Szekely, B.; Nagy, Z.I.; Farago, Z.; Kiss, O.; Lotz, G.; Kovacs, K.A.; Madaras, L.; Udvarhelyi, N.; Dank, M.; Szentmartoni, G.; et al. Comparison of immunophenotypes of primary breast carcinomas and multiple corresponding distant metastases: An autopsy study of 25 patients. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 2017, 34, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajkovic, S.; Charalambous, M.; Charalambous, C.; Simic, L.; Djuricic, G.; Dundjerovic, D.; Miceta, L.D.; Milicic, B.R.; Sopta, J.P. Higher rate of progesterone receptor positivity in skeletal metastases of breast cancer with a pathological fracture vs those without fracture. Int. J. Cancer 2023, 153, 1406–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]




| Variable | Radiographic Presentation | * OR, 95% CI | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lytic | Mixed | |||
| (n = 66) | (n = 119) | |||
| Age (years), mean (range) | 62.7 ± 10.9 (36–88) | 61.01 ± 10.3 (33–83) | p = 0.298 | |
| Unknown primary BC at SM diagnosis—No previous therapy | 23 (12.43%) | 35 (18.92%) | 0.779, 0.410–1.479 | p = 0.446 |
| Known primary BC at SM diagnosis—Previous therapy | 43 (23.24%) | 84 (45.41%) | ||
| Time from primary BC diagnosis to SM diagnosis (months), mean (range) | 68.88 (1–288) | 84.61 (1–264) | p = 0.142 | |
| Radiographic Presentation | p-Value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lytic | Mixed | ||||||
| FLAT | Skull | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | p = 0.455 | p = 0.046 | ||
| Sternum & ribs | 3 (30%) | 7 (70%) | p = 0.700 | ||||
| Skapula & clavicle | 2 (40%) | 3 (60%) | p = 0.838 | ||||
| Pelvis | 10 (7.75%) | 119 (92.25%) | p = 0.068 | ||||
| Sacrum | 1 (50%) | 1 (50%) | p = 0.671 | ||||
| SPINE | Cervical | 5 (83.33%) | 1 (16.67%) | p = 0.013 | p = 0.214 | ||
| Thoracal | 19 (44.19%) | 24 (55.81%) | p = 0.184 | ||||
| Lumbal | 23 (21.7%) | 83 (78.3%) | p = 0.520 | ||||
| LONG | Humerus | Proximal | 4 (36.36%) | 7 (63.64%) | p = 0.961 | p = 0.511 | p = 0.556 |
| Diaphysis | 6 (46.15) | 7 (53.85%) | p = 0.413 | ||||
| Radius & Ulna | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | p = 0.455 | ||||
| Femur | Neck | 6 (17.65%) | 28 (82.35%) | p = 0.015 | p = 0.576 | ||
| Trochanteric | 13 (34.21%) | 25 (65.79%) | p = 0.832 | ||||
| Diaphysis | 12 (42.86%) | 16 (57.14%) | p = 0.389 | ||||
| Tibia & Fibula | 3 (100%) | 0 (0%) | p = 0.019 | ||||
| Solitary metastasis | 36 (19.46%) | 64 (34.59%) | * OR = 0.969 95% CI = 0.530–1.773 | p = 0.92 | |||
| Multiple metastases | 30 (16.22%) | 55 (29.73%) | |||||
| Radiographic Presentation | OR, CI 95% | p-Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lytic | Mixed | |||||
| Receptor | PR | |||||
| Count | PR+ 36 (19.46%) | PR− 30 (16.21%) | PR+ 54 (29.19%) | PR− 65 (35.14%) | OR = 1.441 CI 95% = 0.789–2.623 | p = 0.233 |
| Receptor | ER | |||||
| Count | ER+ 49 (26.49%) | ER− 17 (9.19%) | ER+ 96 (51.89%) | ER− 23 (12.43%) | OR = 0.691 CI 95% = 0.338–1.412 | p = 0.310 |
| Receptor | HER2 | |||||
| Count | HER2+ 31 (16.76%) | HER2− 35 (18.92%) | HER2+ 36 (19.46%) | HER2− 83 (44.86%) | OR = 2.042 CI 95% = 1.096–3.803 | p = 0.023 |
| Ki67 | ||||||
| Mean | 41.65 (Range 10–90) | 15.76 (Range 1–95) | p < 0.001 | |||
| Cut-off value | ≤25 | >25 | ≤25 | >25 | OR = 0.008 CI 95% = 0.003–0.037 | p < 0.001 |
| 13 (7.03%) | 53 (28.65%) | 115 (62.16%) | 4 (2.16%) | |||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Rajkovic, S.; Miceta, L.; Petrovic, B.; Bogosavljevic, N.; Jovanovic, N.; Djuricic, G.; Simic, L.; Sopta, J.; Jeremic, D. Association Between Immunohistochemical Profile and Radiographic Presentation of Breast Cancer Skeletal Metastases. Diagnostics 2026, 16, 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020281
Rajkovic S, Miceta L, Petrovic B, Bogosavljevic N, Jovanovic N, Djuricic G, Simic L, Sopta J, Jeremic D. Association Between Immunohistochemical Profile and Radiographic Presentation of Breast Cancer Skeletal Metastases. Diagnostics. 2026; 16(2):281. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020281
Chicago/Turabian StyleRajkovic, Stanislav, Lazar Miceta, Bojan Petrovic, Nikola Bogosavljevic, Nemanja Jovanovic, Goran Djuricic, Ljubica Simic, Jelena Sopta, and Danilo Jeremic. 2026. "Association Between Immunohistochemical Profile and Radiographic Presentation of Breast Cancer Skeletal Metastases" Diagnostics 16, no. 2: 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020281
APA StyleRajkovic, S., Miceta, L., Petrovic, B., Bogosavljevic, N., Jovanovic, N., Djuricic, G., Simic, L., Sopta, J., & Jeremic, D. (2026). Association Between Immunohistochemical Profile and Radiographic Presentation of Breast Cancer Skeletal Metastases. Diagnostics, 16(2), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020281

