Abstract
Background
Salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) is a high‐grade adenocarcinoma with a 5‐year survival rate of 40%. Although drug therapy has improved patients' prognosis, the impact of brain metastasis (BM) remains poorly understood. We aimed to retrospectively examine the incidence of BM in patients with SDC (n = 464) and develop a tool to estimate their prognoses.
Methods
We retrospectively examined 464 patients with SDC enrolled in a multicenter study. We investigated the incidence of BM, overall survival (OS) rates, and factors affecting prognosis in patients with BM. We also developed an SDC‐graded prognostic assessment (GPA) score for disease prognostication.
Results
Sixty‐five (14%) patients had BM. The median OS (mOS) was 13.1 months. On univariate and multivariate analyses, factors such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >1, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative status, and locoregional uncontrolled disease were associated with poor OS. SDC‐GPA scores according to the prognostic factors were 0, 1, 2, and 3 points, and mOS estimates were 50.5, 16.1, 3.9, and 1.2 months, respectively (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
The SDC‐GPA score emerged as a useful prognostication tool for patients with BM.
Keywords: androgen receptor, brain metastases, distant metastases, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, salivary duct carcinoma
1. INTRODUCTION
Salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) is a rare type of cancer that is pathologically defined as a high‐grade adenocarcinoma that resembles mammary duct carcinoma. 1 , 2 The standard treatment for SDC is surgical resection and postoperative irradiation. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 However, 40% of SDCs develop distant metastasis after the curative treatment, most commonly to the lung, bone, and liver, 7 , 8 resulting in a 5‐year survival rate of approximately 40%. 7 , 8 , 9 One‐third of SDCs are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and almost all SDCs are positive for androgen receptor (AR), both of which are rarely found in other types of salivary gland cancer. 10 , 11 , 12 Therefore, HER2‐ and AR‐targeted therapies are treatment options for these presentations. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17
Brain metastasis (BM) is a relatively rare distant metastatic site in SDC; the incidence of BM ranges from 2% to 8% in patients with metastatic SDC. 8 , 18 , 19 BM not only causes death but also results in personality changes, brain dysfunction, and impaired performance status (PS). Although survival in patients with BM has been estimated to be 3–6 months previously, 20 , 21 recent improvements in diagnostic imaging, radiation, and drug therapies have improved survival and quality of life. 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 However, the prognosis of patients with BM of SDC remains unclear since only a few case series have been reported. 28 , 29
In patients with BM originating from other types of cancers, such as lung and breast, the diagnosis‐specific graded prognostic assessment classification (DS‐GPA) uses factors associated with each type of cancer to aid the prognostication of BM. 30 The DS‐GPA tool is useful for clinical decision‐making and stratification in clinical trials. However, the biological characteristics of BM in SDC remain unclear.
Therefore, we aimed to retrospectively examine the prognostic factors of BM in patients with SDC using an integrated database of SDC from seven institutions in Japan (n = 464), as well as treatment types, incidence, and outcomes. This is the first study to investigate the prognostic factors of BM in patients with SDC based on data from a multicenter study in Japan.
2. METHODS
2.1. Study design
This was a multicenter, retrospective study approved by the institutional ethics review board of each facility. Written informed consent for the publication of this study was obtained from all patients. A public opt‐out system for the residual use of patient data was used. All protocols were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
2.2. Patients
This study included 464 patients diagnosed with SDC and treated at seven institutions between 1992 and 2020. Diagnostic accuracy was verified by an expert pathologist (TN) in accordance with the modern pathological criteria for SDC. 31 , 38 , 39 Follow‐ups were conducted at each institution, and the patients' prognoses information was obtained from the medical records. Patients in this study have been included in previous studies. 7 , 14 , 17 , 32
2.3. Endpoints
The primary endpoint included factors associated with the prognosis of patients with BM. Secondary endpoints were BM incidence and overall survival (OS). A scoring system was developed for prognostication.
2.4. Statistical analysis
The incidence of BM was calculated as the percentage of all patients with SDC who had BM with or without other metastases. The time to BM was calculated from the start of the first treatment to the day when the evidence of BM was first observed through imaging. One patient with BM at initial diagnosis was excluded from these calculations.
Overall survival was defined as the day of BM diagnosis until the day of death from any cause. OS was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. The relationships between age, sex, PS, stage, symptoms at BM diagnosis, number of metastatic lesions, primary site, HER2 status, and AR status were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. HER2 and AR statuses were determined according to a previously reported method. 11 , 12 The SDC‐GPA score ranged from 0 to +3, with each prognostic factor considered significant using multivariate analysis graded 0 or +1. The association between the total score (summary of each prognostic factor grade) and OS was examined. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan).
3. RESULTS
3.1. Rate of BMs
The median follow‐up period of 464 cases was 34.4 months (range, 0.5–227.6 months). Among these patients, 239 (51.4%) had distant metastases, including 65 (14.0%) with BM (Figure 1). The median time to develop BM from the initial treatment was 20.0 months (range, 1.7–83.2 months).
FIGURE 1.
Flowchart.
3.2. Clinical characteristics of patients with BMs
Among the 65 patients with BM, the median follow‐up period after the development of BM was 11.2 months (range, 0.2–66.5 months) (Table 1). The median age was 61 years, and 55 (85%) patients were male. Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0 or 1 (77%). The most common primary tumor site was the parotid gland (65%). Stage III/IV disease was observed in 80% of the patients. Only 5% of patients had BM alone; moreover, 95 patients had other DM, especially in the lung and liver. Additionally, locoregional control was achieved in 70% of the patients during BM detection. The rates of HER2‐ and AR‐positivity were 67% and 95%, respectively. HER2 positivity comprised an IHC score of 3+ or 2+ (93%) and FISH positivity (7%). Overall, 83% and 38% of the patients had multiple and symptomatic BM, respectively.
TABLE 1.
Patient characteristics (n = 65).
| Median age, years (range) | 61 [26–84] |
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Male | 55 (85) |
| Female | 10 (15) |
| ECOG performance status, n (%) | |
| 0 | 30 (46) |
| 1 | 20 (31) |
| 2 | 7 (11) |
| 3 | 8 (12) |
| Primary tumor site, n (%) | |
| Parotid grand | 42 (65) |
| Submandibular grand | 22 (34) |
| Minor salivary gland | 1 (1) |
| Stage at diagnosis of cancer a , n (%) | |
| I/II | 13 (20) |
| III/IV | 52 (80) |
| Clinical symptoms, n (%) | |
| Yes | 24 (38) |
| No | 39 (62) |
| Other metastases, n (%) | |
| Yes | 60 (95) |
| No | 3 (5) |
| HER2 status b , n (%) | |
| Positive | 43 (67) |
| Negative | 21 (33) |
| Primary site control, n (%) | |
| Yes | 44 (70) |
| No | 19 (30) |
| Brain metastases, n (%) | |
| Single | 11 (17) |
| Multiple | 54 (83) |
Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.
According to the Union for International Cancer Control and TNM classification and staging system (2017, 8th edition).
According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines for HER2 testing.
3.3. Treatment
Among the patients with BM (n = 65), 35, 10, 1, 1, and 15 were treated with stereotactic irradiation, whole brain irradiation, surgery plus irradiation, cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, and best supportive care, respectively. Treatment modalities were unknown in three cases. Overall, radiotherapy was administered to 45 (74.2%) patients. Systemic therapy was used in 42 (64.6%) patients after the initial treatment for BM, including trastuzumab and docetaxel (Tmab/DTX), combined androgen blockade (CAB), cytotoxic chemotherapy, and unknown agents in 23 (54.8%), 7 (16.7%), 10 (23.8%), and 2 (4.8%) patients, respectively. AR‐positive/HER2‐positive SDC were frequently treated with either CAB or HER2‐targeted therapy, with the trend leaning toward HER2‐targeted therapy due to its higher efficacy.
3.4. OS in patients with BMs
The median OS (mOS) was 13.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1–16.8) months (Figure 2). The 1‐ and 3‐year OS rates were 52.4% (95% CI, 39.4%–63.9%) and 18.3% (95% CI, 9.1%–29.9%), respectively.
FIGURE 2.
Kaplan–Meier curve for survival of patients with brain metastasis.
3.5. Prognostic factors
Univariate analysis showed that factors, including ECOG PS ≥1, symptomatic BM, HER2‐negative status, and uncontrolled locoregional region, were associated with poor OS. Multivariate analysis showed that ECOG PS ≥1, HER2‐negative status, and locoregionally uncontrolled disease were associated with poor OS (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Factors associated with overall survival in univariate and multivariate analysis.
| Characteristics | n | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p Value | HR | 95% CI | p Value | ||
| Age | |||||||
| <60 years | 29 | 1 | Ref | 0.36 | 1 | Ref | 0.52 |
| ≥60 years | 36 | 1.42 | 0.67–2.99 | 1.23 | 0.65–2.30 | ||
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | 10 | 1 | Ref | 0.76 | 1 | Ref | 0.65 |
| Male | 55 | 0.86 | 0.33–2.24 | 1.21 | 0.52–2.81 | ||
| ECOG performance status | |||||||
| 0 | 30 | 1 | Ref | 0.0036 | 1 | Ref | 0.00017 |
| 1–3 | 35 | 3.50 | 1.51–8.12 | 3.74 | 1.88–7.44 | ||
| Primary tumor site | |||||||
| Others | 23 | 1 | Ref | 0.97 | |||
| Parotid grand | 42 | 1.01 | 0.49–2.11 | ||||
| Stage at diagnosis | |||||||
| III/IV | 59 | 1 | Ref | 0.11 | |||
| I/II | 6 | 2.68 | 0.79–9.08 | ||||
| Clinical symptoms | |||||||
| No | 39 | 1 | Ref | 0.043 | 1 | Ref | 0.14 |
| Yes | 24 | 2.09 | 1.02–4.28 | 1.59 | 0.86–2.95 | ||
| Other metastases | |||||||
| No | 3 | 1 | Ref | 0.81 | |||
| Yes | 60 | 1.20 | 0.26–5.45 | ||||
| HER2 status | |||||||
| Positive | 43 | 1 | Ref | 0.007 | 1 | Ref | 0.012 |
| Negative | 21 | 2.72 | 1.32–5.64 | 2.29 | 1.20–4.36 | ||
| Primary site control | |||||||
| Yes | 44 | 1 | Ref | 0.000046 | 1 | Ref | 0.000018 |
| No | 19 | 5.55 | 2.44–12.67 | 5.20 | 2.45–11.05 | ||
| Brain metastases | |||||||
| Single | 11 | 1 | Ref | 0.12 | |||
| Multiple | 54 | 2.59 | 0.78–8.65 | ||||
Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival. Boldfaced p values indicate.
3.6. SDC‐GPA score
ECOG PS ≥1, HER2‐negative status, and locoregional uncontrolled disease were each scored as 1 to obtain an SDC‐PGA score, where a score of 3 correlates with the worst prognosis (Table 3). In this study, 15, 29, 17, and 4 patients were scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3 points, respectively, and the corresponding mOS were 50.5 months (95% CI, 13.2 months–not reached), 16.1 months (95% CI, 8.7–17.9 months, HR, 3.65; 95% CI: 1.53–8.73; p = 0.004), 3.9 months (95% CI, 1.5–8.8 months, HR, 7.09; 95% CI: 2.88–17.46; p < 0.001), and 1.2 months (95% CI, 0.3 months–not reached, HR, 42.23; 95% CI: 10.48–170.20; p < 0.001), respectively (Table 4, Figure 3).
TABLE 3.
The factors of graded prognostic assessment (GPA) for salivary duct carcinoma.
| Factor | GPA scoring | |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | +1 | |
| HER2 | Positive | Negative |
| ECOG PS | 0 | 1–3 |
| Primary control | Yes | No |
Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.
TABLE 4.
Univariate analysis of graded prognostic assessment for salivary duct carcinoma and overall survival.
| GPA | N (%) | Median OS (months) (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 15 (23) | 50.5 (13.2–NR) | 1.00 | – |
| 1 | 29 (45) | 16.1 (8.7–17.9) | 3.65 (1.53–8.73) | 0.0036 |
| 2 | 17 (26) | 3.9 (1.5–8.8) | 7.09 (2.88–17.46) | <0.001 |
| 3 | 4 (6) | 1.2 (0.3–NR) | 42.23 (10.48–170.20) | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: GPA, graded prognostic assessment; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio, NR, not reached.
FIGURE 3.
Kaplan–Meier curve for survival of patients with brain metastasis by SDC‐GPA score SDC, salivary duct carcinoma; GPA, graded prognostic assessment.
4. DISCUSSION
In this study of 464 individuals with SDC, BM occurred in 14.0% of all patients, and the mOS after BM was 13.1 months. Furthermore, this study showed that ECOG PS ≥1, HER2‐negative status, and locoregional uncontrolled disease were associated with poor survival. A four‐level SDC‐GPA score was constructed based on these factors, showing good predictive value.
The percentage of patients with parotid gland carcinoma with BM at the first visit was 1.6%–6.0%, according to the National Cancer Database registry (2010–2015). 19 , 33 Meanwhile, among 154 patients with SDC with distant metastasis, 9 (7%) had BM. 18 In another previous study, BM occurred in 15 of the 177 (8%) patients with SDC. 8 However, in this study, the incidence of BM among patients with SDC was 14.0%, which is higher than that previously reported. This study included patients who received Tmab/DTX. Our previous prospective studies showed a response rate and mOS of 70.2% and 39.7 months, respectively, in patients with HER2‐positive SDC treated with Tmab/DTX. 14 Additionally, it has been reported that Tmab/DTX prolonged OS in patients with recurrent metastatic SDC. 37 Overall, the number of patients with BM may have increased because Tmab/DTX has prolonged OS, while Tmab failed to control BM due to its inability to cross the blood–brain barrier. In our institutions, postoperative MRIs are not always performed on patients with SDC. In this study, only 14 cases were found to have brain metastases based on routine MRI. Many other cases were either symptomatic or discovered incidentally on follow‐up CT. However, it has recently been shown that brain metastases are more common when distant metastases involving the lungs have occurred. Therefore, MRI may have been performed more frequently in such cases at our institution.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the prognostic factors of BM in patients with SDC. A study of patients with parotid gland carcinoma with BM at the initial presentation reported a mOS of 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.6–11.0). 19 Although direct comparisons are difficult, the mOS after BM in this study was 13.1 months, showing some improvement compared to that previously reported. This finding could be explained by the fact that patients with BM are likely to present with more aggressive or advanced disease than those without BM. In this study, only one patient had BM during the initial diagnosis, which may have affected the results. These findings may also be explained by the differences in treatment rates and methods. Messing et al. reported on 62.7% and 50.2% of patients treated with radiation and systemic therapies, respectively, and the corresponding rates in our study were 74.2% and 61.5%, respectively. In our study, more patients received treatment, including Tmab/DTX (54.8%) and CAB (16.7%), than those in the previous study. Tmab/DTX and CAB therapies may have reduced the number of deaths due to factors other than BM, increasing the mOS estimated in patients with BM.
In a previous study, Sperduto et al. 30 proposed that GPA scores based on age, Karnofsky Performance Status, number of metastases, and extracranial metastases may help prognosticate outcomes in patients with BM from lung cancer, malignant melanoma, breast cancer, renal cell cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer. In this study, factors associated with poor prognosis included ECOG PS >1, HER2‐negative status, and locoregional uncontrolled disease.
ECOG PS is a prognostic factor for many types of cancer. In this study, 95% of the patients with BM had distant metastases outside of the brain. The poor prognosis of patients with low ECOG PS may be due to other metastases that remain inadequately controlled because of systemic therapy deficiencies, even in cases where BM is controlled by radiotherapy.
The prognostic value of HER2‐negativity in this study was similar to that in patients with breast cancer with BM. 34 , 35 The American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for breast cancer recommend surgery or radiation therapy followed by appropriate anti‐HER2 therapy for BM in patients with HER2‐positive breast cancer. 36 In this study, among the 43 patients with HER2‐positive BM, 23 were treated with Tmab/DTX, suggesting treatment overlap between breast cancer and SDC.
The impact of locoregional uncontrolled disease was comparable to that of other carcinomas in a study by Sperduto et al. 30 Locoregional uncontrolled disease during BM diagnosis suggests previous treatment failure. Even if the treatment for BM is successful, the prognosis of patients remains poor due to factors other than BM. Therefore, improved therapies are required to prolong survival in this patient group.
In this study, the number of BMs and other DMs was not a predictive factor for OS, as observed in other cancers. This could be attributed to the fact that SRT was effective even with multiple BMs; additionally, HER2/AR therapy may have been relatively more successful for distant metastases.
In this study, we developed the SDC‐GPA score for prognostication in patients with BM based on ECOG PS, HER2 status, and locoregional control. For all patients with cancer with BM, the prognosis should be assessed, and treatments should be decided during diagnosis, as in cases of breast and lung cancer. If the prognosis is favorable, aggressive treatment is recommended by the guidelines for brain tumor treatment. However, if the prognosis is poor, including an SDC‐GPA score of 2 or 3 points, invasive treatments such as surgery should be avoided. However, further studies on SDC‐GPA scores and treatment are needed.
This study has some limitations. First, this was a retrospective study, and some bias was inevitable in the assessment of treatment type, frequency, and efficacy, specifically in cases that reported curative effects. Second, the SDC‐GPA score was derived from a sample that included patients eligible for anti‐HER2 treatment for recurrent SDC; however, this treatment may not be easily accessible in other contexts. 34 Third, any changes to treatment protocols may affect factors accounted for in the score. Finally, although this study is the largest reported to date on patients with SDC (n = 65), the sample size remains small compared to those observed in other cancer types. Therefore, analysis of additional cases is required to validate these findings.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we examined 65 patients who had SDC with BM. The rate of BM and mOS were 14% and 13.1 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that ECOG PS >1, HER2‐negative status, and locoregional uncontrolled disease were associated with poor OS. Furthermore, the SDC‐GPA score showed predictive value in the prognostication of BM in SDC. These findings may inform future treatment for BM and help improve patient quality of life.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Chihiro Fushimi: Conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (equal); methodology (equal); supervision (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Hideaki Takahashi: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal). Daisuke Kawakita: Software (equal); supervision (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Satoshi Kano: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Kiyoaki Tsukahara: Data curation (equal); methodology (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Hiroyuki Ozawa: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Kenji Okami: Data curation (equal); validation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Akihiro Sakai: Data curation (equal); resources (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Keisuke Yamazaki: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Takuro Okada: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Toyoyuki Hanazawa: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Yuichiro Sato: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Yorihisa Imanishi: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Akira Shimizu: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Takashi Matsuki: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Toshitaka Nagao: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); resources (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Yuichiro Tada: Conceptualization (equal); supervision (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal).
FUNDING INFORMATION
This work was supported by JSPS Grants‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research (C) to Dr. Yuichiro Tada (No. 21K09616), Dr. Chihiro Fushimi (No. 21K16835), Dr. Takashi Matsuki (No. 20K16835), and Dr. Toshitaka Nagao (No. 20K07417).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This study was approved by the ethics committee of the International University of Health and Welfare Mita Hospital (H23‐12).
CONSENT STATEMENT
Written informed consent for the publication of the present study was obtained from all patients. A public opt‐out system for the residual use of patient data was used.
Supporting information
Appendix S1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.
Fushimi C, Takahashi H, Kawakita D, et al. Brain metastases in patients with salivary duct carcinoma: A retrospective study. Cancer Med. 2024;13:e7037. doi: 10.1002/cam4.7037
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209‐249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. El‐Naggar AK, Chan JKC, Takata T, Grandis JR, Slootweg PJ. The fourth edition of the head and neck World Health Organization blue book: editors' perspectives. Hum Pathol. 2017;66:10‐12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Lewis AG, Tong T, Maghami E. Diagnosis and management of malignant salivary gland tumors of the parotid gland. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2016;49:343‐380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Pfister DG, Spencer S, Adelstein D, et al. Head and neck cancers, version 2.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2020;18:873‐898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Geiger JL, Ismaila N, Beadle B, et al. Management of salivary gland malignancy: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(17):1909‐1941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Sood S, McGurk M, Vaz F. Management of salivary gland tumours: United Kingdom national multidisciplinary guidelines. J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130:S142‐S149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Otsuka K, Imanishi Y, Tada Y, et al. Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for salivary duct carcinoma: a multi‐institutional analysis of 141 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(6):2038‐2045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Boon E, Bel M, van Boxtel W, et al. A clinicopathological study and prognostic factor analysis of 177 salivary duct carcinoma patients from The Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2018;143(4):758‐766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Nakaguro M, Tada Y, Faquin WC, Sadow PM, Wirth LJ, Nagao T. Salivary duct carcinoma: updates in histology, cytology, molecular biology, and treatment. Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;128(10):693‐703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Santana T, Pavel A, Martinek P, et al. Biomarker immunoprofile and molecular characteristics in salivary duct carcinoma: clinicopathological and prognostic implications. Hum Pathol. 2019;93:37‐47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Takase S, Kano S, Tada Y, et al. Biomarker immunoprofile in salivary duct carcinomas: clinicopathological and prognostic implications with evaluation of the revised classification. Oncotarget. 2017;8(35):59023‐59035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Masubuchi T, Tada Y, Maruya S, et al. Clinicopathological significance of androgen receptor, HER2, Ki‐67 and EGFR expressions in salivary duct carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20(1):35‐44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Jhaveri KL, Wang XV, Makker V, et al. Ado‐trastuzumab emtansine (T‐DM1) in patients with HER2‐amplified tumors excluding breast and gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinomas: results from the NCI‐MATCH trial (EAY131) subprotocol Q. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1821‐1830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Takahashi H, Tada Y, Saotome T, et al. Phase II trial of trastuzumab and docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐positive salivary duct carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:125‐134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Uijen MJM, Lassche G, van Engen‐van Grunsven ACH, et al. Systemic therapy in the management of recurrent or metastatic salivary duct carcinoma: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2020;89:102069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kurzrock R, Bowles DW, Kang H, et al. Targeted therapy for advanced salivary gland carcinoma based on molecular profiling: results from MyPathway, a phase IIa multiple basket study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:412‐421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Fushimi C, Tada Y, Takahashi H, et al. A prospective phase II study of combined androgen blockade in patients with androgen receptor‐positive metastatic or locally advanced unresectable salivary gland carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:979‐984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Mimica X, McGill M, Hay A, et al. Distant metastasis of salivary gland cancer: incidence, management, and outcomes. Cancer. 2020;126:2153‐2162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Messing I, Goyal S, Sherman JH, et al. Incidence and prognosis of brain metastases in head and neck cancer patients at diagnosis. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(9):E2543‐E2552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Barth A, Wanek LA, Morton DL. Prognostic factors in 1,521 melanoma patients with distant metastases. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;181:193‐201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Gaspar LE, Mehta MP, Patchell RA, et al. The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence‐based clinical practice guideline. J Neuro‐Oncol. 2010;96(1):17‐32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Reungwetwattana T, Nakagawa K, Cho BC, et al. CNS response to osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with untreated EGFR‐mutated advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3290‐3297. doi: 10.1200/Jco.2018.78.3118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Tawbi HA, Forsyth PA, Algazi A, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in melanoma metastatic to the brain. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:722‐730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Yang JCH, Kim SW, Kim DW, et al. Osimertinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer and leptomeningeal metastases: the BLOOM study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:538‐547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Goldberg SB, Schalper KA, Gettinger SN, et al. Pembrolizumab for management of patients with NSCLC and brain metastases: long‐term results and biomarker analysis from a non‐randomised, open‐label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(5):655‐663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Yamamoto M, Serizawa T, Shuto T, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases (JLGK0901): a multi‐institutional prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(4):387‐395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Wolf A, Kvint S, Chachoua A, et al. Toward the complete control of brain metastases using surveillance screening and stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2018;128:23‐31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Lau R, Fernández‐Coello A, Vidal‐Sarró N, et al. Brain metastasis of carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma of the parotid gland: case report and review of the literature. Acta Neurochir. 2017;159:459‐463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Venteicher AS, Walcott BP, Sheth SA, et al. Clinical features of brain metastasis from salivary gland tumors. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20:1533‐1537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Sperduto PW, Kased N, Roberge D, et al. Summary report on the graded prognostic assessment: an accurate and facile diagnosis‐specific tool to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:419‐425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Nagao T, Lictra L, Loening T. Salivary duct carcinoma in WHO classification of head and neck tumours. In: El‐Naggar AK, Chan JKC, Grandis JR, Takata T, Slootweg PJ, eds. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Volume 9. IARC Publications; 2017:173‐174. [Google Scholar]
- 32. Nakaguro M, Sato Y, Tada Y, et al. Prognostic implication of histopathologic indicators in salivary duct carcinoma: proposal of a novel histologic risk stratification model. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44:526‐535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Benchetrit L, Mehra S, Mahajan A, Rahmati RW, Judson BL, Edwards HA. Major salivary gland cancer with distant metastasis upon presentation: patterns, outcomes, and imaging implications. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;167(2):305‐315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, et al. Beyond an updated graded prognostic assessment (Breast GPA): a prognostic index and trends in treatment and survival in breast cancer brain metastases from 1985 to today. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107:334‐343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Cavalieri S, Nuzzolese I, Ottini A, et al. HER2 status in recurrent/metastatic androgen receptor overexpressing salivary gland carcinoma patients. Front Oncol. 2023;12:1096068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Moy B, Rumble RB, Come SE, et al. Chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative metastatic breast cancer that is either endocrine‐pretreated or hormone receptor‐negative: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3938‐3958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Kawakita D, Nagao T, Takahashi H, et al. Survival benefit of HER2‐targeted or androgen deprivation therapy in salivary duct carcinoma. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2022;14:17588359221119538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Nagao T, Gaffey TA, Visscher DW, et al. Invasive micropapillary salivary duct carcinoma: a distinct histologic. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(3):319‐326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Batsakis JG, El‐Naggar AK, Luna MA. “Adenocarcinoma, not otherwise specified”: a diminishing group of salivary carcinomas. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1992;101(1):102‐104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Appendix S1
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.