Correlation of tumor size and immunohistochemistry status with lung metastasis in carcinoma breast

S. P. Gayathre, S. Maniselvi


Background: Breast cancer is common cancer among females in rural India and is rapidly catching up to cervical cancer in rural India. Metastasis can occur after the initiation of treatment or at the time of diagnosis. The stage at initial presentation and underlying biology of the tumor has an impact on prognosis and metastasis of the tumor. The objective of the study was to study the correlation between tumor size and lung metastasis and to find the correlation between ER, PR status, and lung metastasis.

Methods: This study was conducted in 82 patients with breast carcinoma coming to the department of the general surgery and oncology at Government Stanley Medical College and Hospital. Details of cases and full history obtained. Routine blood investigations were done. Tumor size is evaluated by clinical examination and imaging. For all patients, core needle biopsy is done to confirm the diagnosis and receptor status. IHC status of the tumor is obtained from the pathologist. Presence of lung metastasis documented by CECT chest.

Results: In this study, the prevalence rate of lung metastasis in carcinoma breast patients is 9.75% Total number of Carcinoma Breast are 82, in which lung metastasis is seen in 8 cases and CECT chest is normal in 74 patients. The prevalence rate of lung metastasis in ER-positive patients is 9.90%. The prevalence rate of lung metastasis in ER-negative patients is 10.81%. The prevalence rate of metastasis in PR positive patients is 9.52%. The prevalence rate of metastasis in PR negative patients is 10%. Of 34 cases with HER-2 positive status 3 patients presented with lung metastasis with a prevalence rate of 8.82%. Of 48 cases with HER-2 negative status 5 cases presented with lung metastasis with a prevalence rate of 10.42%.

Conclusions: In this study prevalence of lung metastasis in carcinoma breast is 9.75%. There seems to be no correlation between ER, PR and HER-2 neu status and lung metastasis. There is also no correlation between clinically T2 and T3 tumors and lung metastasis. Whereas clinically T4 tumors seem to have a higher incidence of lung metastasis.


Breast carcinoma, Lung metastasis, Estrogen receptor, Progesterone receptor

Full Text:



Yang XR, Chang-Claude J, Goode EL, Couch FJ, Nevanlinna H, Milne RL, et al. Associations of breast cancer risk factors with tumor subtypes: a pooled analysis from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(3):250-63.

Ghosn M, Hajj C, Kattan J, Farhat F, El Karak F, Nasr N, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer in Lebanon: a case series. Oncologist. 2011;16(11):1552-6.

Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California Cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007;109:1721-8.

Park YH, Lee SJ, Cho EY. Clinical relevance of TN staging system according to breast cancer subtypes. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1554-60.

Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, et al. Screening for breast cancer: An update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727-37.

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151-63.

Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563-71.

Murphy JO, Moo TA, King TA, et al: Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: Initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4121-7.

Rosen PR. Rosen’s breast pathology, ed 2, Philadelphia, 2001, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371-8.

Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:229-37.

Stefanick ML, Anderson GL, Margolis KL, Hendrix SL, Rodabough RJ, Paskett ED, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogens on breast cancer and mammography screening in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy. JAMA. 2006;295:1647-57.

Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: The NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2727-41.

Cuzick J, Powles T, Veronesi U, Forbes J, Edwards R, Ashley S, et al. Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials. Lancet. 2003;361:296-300.

Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature. 2000;406:747-52.