Journal Health of Woman. 2024. 6(175): 9-15. doi: 10.15574/HW.2024.6(175).915

Neborets A. D.^1,2, Chekhun V. F.^1
1R.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of the NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv
²State Non-Profit Enterprise "National Cancer Institute", Kyiv, Ukraine

For citation: Neborets AD, Chekhun VF. (2024). Clinicopathological features of metastatic breast cancer in patients with metabolic syndrome. Ukrainian Journal Health of Woman. 6(175): 9-15. doi: 10.15574/HW.2024.6(175).915
Article received: Aug 23, 2024. Accepted for publication: Nov 27, 2024.

Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous pathology, characterized by clinicopathological and molecular biological features, as well as the clinical course of the neoplastic process, which has certain metastatic “preferences”. The development of metabolic disorders in menopausal women is not only a risk factor for BC but also has a direct impact on the tumor growth, intensity, and topology of distant metastases.
Aim – to identify the clinicopathological features of primary metastatic BC (pMBCa) associated with distant metastasis, based on the hormonal receptor status of tumors in presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS).
Materials and methods. The retrospective study was conducted using the medical records of 88 pMBCa at stage IV who were treated at the National Cancer Institute during 2016-2023. The total number of metastatic lesions was 182, which were further divided into groups, depending on the presence of MetS signs in patients: MetS+ (78 cases) and MetS- (104 cases).  The International Diabetes Federation guidelines (2005) were used to establish the diagnosis of MetS in patients with pMBCa. The study examined the topology of distant metastases, clinical characteristics of patients with pMBCa, taking into account the receptor status of tumors and distribution by morphological structure. The conventional clinical, morphological, immunohistochemical methods, methods of medical and mathematical statistics were used.
Results. In the MetS+ group of patients, metastatic lung involvement was diagnosed the most frequently (43.6% of cases), whereas in the MetS- group of patients, the most common site of distant metastases was the bones (44.2% of cases). In the MetS+ patients, smaller receptor-positive tumors predominantly metastasized to the lungs and liver, while receptor-negative tumors of similar size primarily affected the lungs. It was found, that the presence of MetS signs in patients with pMBCa is associated with a high incidence of metastatic spread to distant organs in the presence of fewer regional lymph nodes. An increase in the number of poorly differentiated tumors was recorded in patients of the MetS+ group with receptor-positive pMBCa cases with distant metastases to the bones and lungs.
Conclusions. The pMBCa in the MetS+ group of patients are associated with the presence of smaller tumors and fewer lymph node involvements, lobular structure, which probably indicates an aggressive course of the malignant process.
The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The research protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the participating institution. Informed concent of the women was obtained for the research.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords: metastatic breast cancer, metabolic syndrome, clinicopathological features, molecular biological features.

REFERENCES

1. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V et al. (2018). Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): Analysis of individual records for 37,513,025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. The Lancet, 391(10125): 1023-1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3; PMid:29395269

2. Cejuela M, Martin-Castillo B, Menendez JA, Pernas S. (2022). Metformin and breast cancer: Where are we now? International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 23(5): 2705. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23052705; PMid:35269852 PMCid:PMC8910543

3. Dou T, Li J, Zhang Y et al. (2024). The cellular composition of the tumor microenvironment is an important marker for predicting therapeutic efficacy in breast cancer. Frontiers in Immunology. 15: 1368687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1368687; PMid:38487526 PMCid:PMC10937353

4. Ellis I, Rakha E, Tse G, Tan P. (2022). An international unified approach to reporting and grading invasive breast cancer: An overview of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) initiative. Histopathology. 82: 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14802; PMid:36482273 PMCid:PMC10107639

5. Jin L, Han B, Siegel E, Cui Y, Giuliano A, Cui X. (2018). Breast cancer lung metastasis: Molecular biology and therapeutic implications. Cancer Biology & Therapy. 19: 858-868. https://doi.org/10.1080/15384047.2018.1456599; PMid:29580128 PMCid:PMC6300341

6. Karra P, Winn M, Pauleck S et al. (2022). Metabolic dysfunction and obesity-related cancer: Beyond obesity and metabolic syndrome. Obesity (Silver Spring). 30(7): 1323-1334. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.23444; PMid:35785479 PMCid:PMC9302704

7. Liang Y, Zhang H, Song X, Yang Q. (2020). Metastatic heterogeneity of breast cancer: Molecular mechanism and potential therapeutic targets. Seminars in Cancer Biology. 60: 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.08.012; PMid:31421262

8. Mathew A, Rajagopal PS, Villgran V, Sandhu GS, Jankowitz RC, Jacob M et al. (2017). Distinct pattern of metastases in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 77: 660-666. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-109374; PMid:28757653 PMCid:PMC5489406

9. McClelland RA, Wilson D, Leake R et al. (1991). A multicentre study into the reliability of steroid receptor immunocytochemical assay quantification. British Quality Control Group. European Journal of Cancer. 27(6): 711-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5379(91)90171-9; PMid:1829909

10. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F et al. (2010). Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: The role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Research. 12(4): 207. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2607; PMid:20804570 PMCid:PMC2949637

11. Shi R, Tang YQ, Miao H. (2020). Metabolism in tumor microenvironment: Implications for cancer immunotherapy. MedComm. 1(1): 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/mco2.6; PMid:34766109 PMCid:PMC8489668

12. Soni A, Ren Z, Hameed O, Chanda D, Morgan CJ, Siegal GP et al. (2015). Breast cancer subtypes predispose the site of distant metastases. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 143: 471-478. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPYO5FSV3UPEXS; PMid:25779997

13. Tahara RK, Brewer TM, Theriault RL, Ueno NT. (2019). Bone metastasis of breast cancer. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 1152: 105-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20301-6_7; PMid:31456182

14. Testa U, Castelli G, Pelosi E. (2020). Breast cancer: A molecularly heterogeneous disease needing subtype-specific treatments. Medical Sciences. 8(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci8010018; PMid:32210163 PMCid:PMC7151639

15. Yiran L, Hanwen Z, Xiaojin S et al. (2020). Metastatic heterogeneity of breast cancer: Molecular mechanism and potential therapeutic targets. Seminars in Cancer Biology. 60: 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.08.012; PMid:31421262