Abstract
Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast (MBC) is an uncommon disease that accounts for 0.2–1% of all invasive breast carcinomas, comprising a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by differentiation of the neoplastic epithelium to squamous cells and/or mesenchymal-looking elements. Breast implant–associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC) is a rare complication of breast implantation, with 22 cases reported in the literature. Due to the histological overlap between MBC and BIA-SCC, the differential diagnosis may be challenging, especially in patients with an advanced cancer-bearing breast implant, in which assessing the tumor’s primary site may be difficult. The limited amount of scientific data on BIA-SCC implies the absence of a standardized diagnostic method and of a specific staging system to guide patients’ clinical management. Of the 22 BIA-SCC cases reported in the literature, 14 (64%) had squamous metaplasia of the inner surface of the capsule, whereas in 10 (45%), there was a histologically proven spread to the extracapsular tissues without a detailed description of the capsule infiltration. Herein, we describe the case of a peri-implant tumor mass with squamous histology in a patient treated with mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction for a microinvasive breast carcinoma, in which the absence of squamous metaplasia of the capsule and of its neoplastic infiltration favored a diagnosis of MBC likely originating from the peri-implant tissue. This case suggests that in patients with peri-implant cancers with squamous differentiation, the extension of the tumor throughout the capsule thickness and the presence of squamous metaplasia of the capsule are critical factors that should be considered in the differential diagnosis between BIA-SCC and MBC. In addition, even in cases with capsule-confined tumors, the depth of the capsular involvement can be used to stage the disease, similar to what is currently recommended for BIA-ALCL.
Keywords: Metaplastic carcinoma, breast Implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma, breast cancer recurrence, BIA-SCC
Introduction
Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast (MBC) is an uncommon disease that accounts for 0.2–1% of all invasive breast carcinomas. It comprises a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by differentiation of the neoplastic epithelium to squamous cells and/or mesenchymal-looking elements [1]. Histologically MBC is classified as epithelial-only carcinomas, pure sarcomatoid carcinomas, and biphasic epithelial and sarcomatoid carcinomas [1]. Despite this heterogeneity, the cell of origin of MBC is assumed to be a de-differentiated epithelial tumor cell or alternatively a basal-like stem cell. Both these hypotheses rely on the genetic evidence of a monoclonal origin from a common precursor cell of each tumoral component [2–5]. However, it remains unclear whether somatic mutations could cause the divergent differentiation that allows metaplastic carcinoma subtypes [6].
Breast implant–associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC) is a very rare complication of breast implantation, with 19 cases recognized by the FDA until 2023 [7] and 22 cases reported in the literature [8–26]. Histologically, it is characterized by the formation of sheets and nests of epithelial cells with squamous differentiation. Despite the histological overlap with MBC, BIA-SCC differentiates from MBC because it derives from the malignant transformation of the squamous metaplasia occurring on the inner surface of the periprosthetic breast capsule [8,9, 21,27]. However, the differential diagnosis between these two entities can be challenging, especially when the tumor is mass-forming and occurs in patients with a history of breast cancer. We report the first case of MBC developed in a patient treated with nipple sparing mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction for a microinvasive breast carcinoma of no special type with an extensive high grade in situ ductal carcinoma component.
Patients/materials and methods
Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections of the tumor mass were reviewed by expert pathologists by utilizing morphological and immunohistochemical criteria according to the 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of breast tumors [1]. FFPE sections were immunostained for CK5/6, GATA3 (Biocare Medical, Pacheco, CA, USA), CK7, p40, ER, PR, HER2, CKAE1/AE3 (Leica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany) p63, and Ki67 (Dako, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using an automated immunostainer (Bond-III, Leica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany). In situ hybridization for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) -encoded mRNA (EBER) was performed on paraffin sections using BOND EBER Probe (Bond-III, Leica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany).
Results
A 53-year-old female was diagnosed on December 2020 with microinvasive ductal carcinoma of no special type associated with extensive high-grade in situ ductal carcinoma on a 5 cm mass of the central and external quadrants of the right breast. The patient underwent nipple sparing mastectomy with sentinel node biopsy and implant-based breast reconstruction with a textured device. Histological examination of sentinel lymph node tissue had not revealed micro or macrometastasis. TNM staging was pT1mi pN0(sn) according to the current staging system (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], 2017) [28]. The prognostic/predictive factors assessment on the tumor tissue showed positivity for estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) (both in 40% of the neoplastic cells), a proliferation index (Ki67) of 25% and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) score 1+ (negative). Hormone therapy was started after surgery. Three years later, the patient presented with a right chest wall solid mass. Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans revealed a 10 × 7 cm mass in the soft tissue of the right lateral chest wall, in proximity (0.5 cm) to the breast implant, with a maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of 11, and no other area of metabolic activity. With the suspicion of cancer relapse, she subsequently underwent surgical tumor excision with an en-bloc capsulectomy. Macroscopic examination showed a mass-forming lesion with 0.5 cm distance from the luminal surface of the peri implant capsule, corresponding histologically to solid nests of large epithelial cells, with focal spindle morphology and necrotic areas, infiltrating the adipose tissue but not the periprosthetic capsule (Figure 1). Immunohistochemically the neoplastic cells expressed p63, p40 and GATA3, CK5/6, CKAE1/AE3 and focally CK7, and were negative for ER, PgR, HER2, and EBER- (Figure 1). The proliferation index (Ki67) was 40-50%. The periprosthetic breast capsule was represented by fibrous tissue with mild chronic inflammation and diffuse pseudo-synovial metaplasia of the luminal surface without evidence of squamous metaplasia. These findings did not support the diagnosis of BIA-SCC, favoring a pure squamous MBC. The patient received adjuvant carboplatin–doxorubicin chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy. Post-chemotherapy CT scan revealed multiple lung nodules suggestive of metastatic disease, for which the patient is currently under treatment with Trop2-targeted therapy (Sacituzumab Govitecan).
Figure 1.
Histological examination revealed a mass-forming lesion distant from the luminal surface of the peri implant capsule and infiltrating the adipose tissue but not the periprosthetic capsule [A, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), optical magnification (o.m. ×6)]. The capsulewas characterized by the presence of pseudo-synovial metaplasia (A, H&E upper insert, o.m. ×100), whereas the mass was composed by solid nests of large epithelial cells, with focal spindle morphology, (A, H&E lower insert, o.m. ×200). The neoplastic cells were positive for p63 (B, o.m. ×6), p40 (C, o.m. ×6), and focally for CK5/6 (D, o.m. ×6).
Discussion
MBC is a heterogeneous group of invasive breast carcinomas (IBCs) characterized by differentiation of the neoplastic epithelium to squamous cells and/or mesenchymal-looking elements [1]. BIA-SCC is considered a separate entity distinct from MBC with pure squamous differentiation, arising from the inner lining of the breast implant capsule. It occurs after a mean time of 22.74 years (range 11–40 years) in patients with both smooth and textured implants [8–26,29,40].
A recent paper by our group highlighted the differences between pure squamous MBC and BIA-SCC by systematically reviewing the literature data [29]. The review highlighted that the mean age of the patients diagnosed with pure squamous MBC was about seven years older (61.3 years; range, 18–99 years) than the mean age of the patients with BIA-SCC diagnosis (54.1 years; range 40–81 years). The main dissimilarity that emerges is that only 0.13% of pure squamous MBC patients received a breast implant for cosmetic augmentation, whereas in patients diagnosed with BIA-SCC, the reason for implantation was augmentation in 73.3% and reconstruction in 23.3% of the cases. Both pure squamous MBC and BIA-SCC have an aggressive behavior with locoregional lymph node metastases respectively in 25.6% and 23.3% of the patients and distant metastases in 7.6% and 30.0% involving mainly lungs and liver in both cohorts, cutaneous/subcutaneous tissues predominantly in BIA-SCC, and bones in MBC patients only [29].
MBC patients are reported to have lower response to chemotherapy and a worse clinical outcome after chemotherapy than other forms of triple-negative breast carcinomas [30–33]. The presence of high-grade spindle cell, squamous cell, high-grade adenosquamous MBC components and the presence of high number of morphologies within mixed metaplastic carcinomas correlates with a worse outcome [34–36]. The 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year overall survival rates for MBC are 77% [37], 62% [33,38], and 53% [39], respectively.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that BIA-SCC was located in the capsule around the breast implant, often in the posterior aspect (behind the implant), without being present in the breast tissue. They also highlighted three reports of death due to the disease [7]. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), BIA-SCC can exhibit highly invasive properties, with 80% of extracapsular spread at presentation and metastasis in lymph nodes and distant sites, with a 6-month mortality rate of 43.8% [40]. Based on the small amount of data available, neoadjuvant and postoperative chemotherapy has been administrated with limited-to-no success, whereas radiation therapy has been used on a limited basis and mostly for palliative purposes [41]. The depth of capsular and extracapsular tumor invasion could be an important prognostic factor. We reviewed the 22 BIA-SCC cases reported in the literature to date [8–26], and in only 10 cases (45%), the involvement of the capsular and extracapsular tissues was histologically detailed (Table 1). This limits the possibility to develop a specific tumor staging system that can be used to guide patients’ clinical management and prognosis assessment.
Table 1.
Clinicopathological features of BIA-SCC cases reported in the literature.
| Cases | Squamous metaplasia | Extracapsular invasion | Locoregional Lymph nodes at diagnosis | Metastasis or local recurrence | Therapy | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paletta et al. | yes | No (histologically proven) | Negative (histologically proven) | Negative (CT) | Capsulectomy, mastectomy | Disease free 12 months after mastectomy |
| Kitchen et al. | yes | No (histologically proven) | NA | NA | Capsulectomy | NA |
| Satgunaseeian et al. | NA | No (histologically proven) | NA | NA | Mastectomy | NA |
| Zomerlei et al. | yes | Yes (PET) | Negative (histologically proven) | NA | Capsulectomy, mastectomy, axillary lymph node disection, chest wall resection | NA |
| Olsen et al. | yes | Yes (histologically proven) | Negative (histologically proven) | Subcutaneous soft tissues of the axilla, left upper arm and chest wall (histologically proven) | Mastectomy, CHT+RT, excision of axillary metastases followed by CHT+RT | Under palliative radiation therapy |
| Olsen et al. | yes | Yes (histologically proven) | Negative (histologically proven) | Lung and soft tissues (PET) Liver (histologically proven) | Mastectomy, CHT+RT | Died of disease |
| Buchanan et al. | NA | NA | Positive (PET) | Negative (PET) | Capsulectomy, mastectomy, chest wall resection and RT | Disease free 8-year after diagnosis |
| Resetkova et al. | NA | Yes (MRI) | NA | NA | Mastectomy and chest wall resection | NA |
| Zhou et al. | yes | Yes (histologically proven) | Negative (CT) | Lung nodules, kidney and liver (histologically proven), Leptomeningeal spread (NA) | Capsulectomy, re-excision of the chest wall mass and RT | Died of disease 1 year after diagnosis |
| Alfaro et al. | yes | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Goel et al. | NA | Yes (histologically proven) | Positive (CT, MRI) | NA | Mastectomy, axillary lymph node dissection, chest wall escision and CHT+RT | NA |
| Zikiryakhodzhaev et al. | NA | Yes (histologically proven) | Positive (histologically proven) | Negative | Chest wall resection | Disease free 9-months after diagnosis |
| Goldberg et al. | yes | Yes (MRI and CT) | NA | Axillary region (histologically proven) Pleural effusions not histologically defined | Partial capsulectomy and CHT | Died of disease 3 months after the diagnosis |
| Goldberg et al. | NA | Yes (histologically proven) | Negative (CT, PET) | Negative (CT, PET) | Capsulectomy and CHT+RT | Under palliative care, lost follow-up |
| Liu et al. | NA | Yes (histologically proven) | Positive (PET) | NA | Chest wall resection, prothesis removal, lymph node biopsy, CHT+RT | Disease free at 24-month follow-up |
| Soni et al. | yes | Yes (histologically proven) | Negative (histologically proven) | NA | Capsulectomy, mastectomy, lymph node biopsy, CHT+RT | Remission 12 months after adyuvant therapy |
| Whaley et al. | yes | No (histologically proven) | NA | NA | Capsulectomy | Disease free at 9-months-follow-up |
| Whaley et al. | yes | Yes (histologically proven) | Negative (histologically proven) | NA | Capsulectomy | Lost at follow-up |
| Vorstenbosh et al. | NA | Yes (CT) | NA | NA | Mastectomy, CHT and chest wall resection | Disease free over 2 years |
| Xia et al. | yes | Yes (PET-CT and MRI) | Negative (histologically proven) | Multiple metastasis including axillary lymph nodes, skin of the chest and pleura (NA) | Capsulectomy, sentinel lymph node biopsy and CHT+RT | Multiple metastasis one year after the diagnosis |
| Rosenberg et al. | yes | Yes (histologically proven) | Negative (histologically proven) | Negative (PET) | Mastectomy, capsulectomy, axillary lymph node dissection, CHT+RT | Recurrent diasease two months after the surgery |
| Badri et al. | yes | No (histologically proven) | Negative (histologically proven) | Negative (PET) | Mastectomy, capsulectomy, lymph node biopsy and CHT | Disease free at 6 months-follow-up |
In patients with advanced disease, where the primary site of the tumor can’t be clearly identified, the differential diagnosis between BIA-SCC and pure squamous MBC may be particularly challenging. This occurs because of the close histological resemblance and the absence of disease-specific immunohistochemical markers. Both the diseases usually lack expression of ER, PgR, and HER2 [37,38, 42,43], and GATA3 may be expressed in both MBC and squamous cell carcinomas [44,45]. In our case the presence of a mass located in the fibroadipose tissue, without the involvement of the implant capsule, and the absence of areas of squamous metaplasia of the inner surface of the capsule argue against the hypothesis of a tumor originating from the capsule. Among the 22 BIA-SCC cases reported in the literature, 14 described capsular squamous metaplasia (64%) (Table 1). Squamous metaplasia is considered as a benign form of adaptation to chronic tissue injury [46], and it can be an incidental finding in capsulectomy specimens removed for non-tumoral reasons (Figure 2) [47]. While initially reversible, it may evolve as the chronic exposure to the stimulus prolongs, ultimately playing a role in the tumorigenic process, potentially making squamous metaplasia a precursor of BIA-SCC [22, 41].
Figure 2.
Squamous metaplasia in capsulectomy specimen removed for non-tumoral reasons (H&E o.m. ×10, lower insert ×200).
The history of breast cancer in our patient may raise concerns of a possible relapse as MBC. Isolated chest wall recurrences in patients with breast cancer treated with radical mastectomy are not frequent [48]. In a 20-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer, Veronesi et al. described a similar survival rate in both groups, even though the probability of a recurrent tumor was significantly higher in the patients treated with breast-conserving therapy than in the radical-mastectomy ones (30 of 352 vs. 8 of 349 patients) [49].
There are only anecdotal cases reporting breast cancer recurrences as MBC in patients treated with mastectomy and axillar lymph node dissection [50–52]. Genetic studies proving a clonal relationship between the primary breast cancer and its MBC relapse are lacking. In our case, it seems likely that the MBC represented a possible relapse of the previous breast cancer or alternatively an unrelated tumor originating from a residual breast parenchyma.
Conclusions
Herein, we present the first case in the literature of an MBC in a patient treated with mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction for a microinvasive breast cancer, in which BIA-SCC was excluded by the absence of tumor extension throughout the capsule thickness and of squamous metaplasia of the capsule. Moreover, similarly to what is currently recommended for breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), we suggest to detail the depth of tumor invasion, even in capsule-confined squamous tumors, to allow an accurate staging of the disease.
Author contributions
Arianna Di Napoli, Evelina Rogges, and Maria Mercedes Petrino drafted the manuscript. Arianna Di Napoli, Evelina Rogges, and Maria Mercedes Petrino performed a histological revision of the slides. Arianna Di Napoli was responsible for histopathological diagnosis. Fabio Santanelli di Pompeo, Michail Sorothos, and Guido Firmani were responsible for clinical diagnosis and treatment. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethics statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and performed in accordance with the ethical requirements of biomedical research promulgated by the international and national governments.
Disclosure statement
Fabio Santanelli di Pompeo, Michail Sorotos and Guido Firmani would like to disclose that the NESMOS Department with which they are affiliated, has received research funds from Motiva Establishment Labs in 2017, and from GC Aesthetics in 2018 and 2020. The NESMOS Department has also received mini-implants from Establishment Labs, GC Aesthetics and Sebbin for research purposes. FSDP was a paid consultant for BellaSeno GmbH from 2021 till 2023. He has received reimbursements for travel/lodging expenses from ICEAG in 2015 and SCHEER-WG in 2019, 2020, and 2021, and is a member of Notified Body 0373, part of the Superior Institute of Health, which carries out CE Mark certification activities for the Italian Ministry of Health for the year 2021. FSdP received a speaker fee from Establishment Labs in 2023 and 2024. MS received a speaker fee from Establishment Labs in 2024. They have no ownerships or investments to disclose. All other authors hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge, no financial support or benefits has been received, neither by themselves directly, nor by any member of their immediate family or any individual or entity with whom or with which they may have a significant relationship from any commercial source which is related directly or indirectly to the scientific work which is reported on in the article.
None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article.
References
- 1.WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board . Breast tumours. WHO classification of tumours series, 5th ed.; vol. 2. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019. https://tumourclassification.iarc.who.int/chapters/32. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Natrajan R, et al. Molecular analysis reveals a genetic basis for the phenotypic diversity of metaplastic breast carcinomas. J Pathol. 2010;220(5):562–573. doi: 10.1002/path.2675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lien HC, Lin CW, Mao TL, et al. p53 overexpression and mutation in metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: genetic evidence for a monoclonal origin of both the carcinomatous and the heterogeneous sarcomatous components. J Pathol. 2004;204(2):131–139. doi: 10.1002/path.1624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Avigdor BE, Beierl K, Gocke CD, et al. Whole-exome sequencing of metaplastic breast carcinoma indicates monoclonality with associated ductal carcinoma component. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(16):4875–4884. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.van Deurzen CH, Lee AH, Gill MS, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinoma: tumour histogenesis or dedifferentiation? J Pathol. 2011;224(4):434–437. doi: 10.1002/path.2872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Weigelt B, Eberle C, Cowell CF, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinoma: more than a special type. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14(3):147–148. doi: 10.1038/nrc3637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Food and Drug Administration . Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in the capsule around breast implants – FDA safety communication; 2023, March 8. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-reports-squamous-cell-carcinoma-scc-capsule-around-breast-implants-fda-safety-communication.
- 8.Paletta C, Paletta FX, Jr, Paletta FX. Sr.. Squamous cell carcinoma following breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg. 1992;29(5):425–432. discussion 429–32. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199211000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kitchen SB, Paletta CE, Shehadi SI, et al. Epithelialization of the lining of a breast implant capsule. Possible origins of squamous cell carcinoma associated with a breast implant capsule. Cancer. 1994;73(5):1449–1452. doi: . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Satgunaseelan L, Cheung D, Reddy J.. Breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma-a rare long term complication. Pathology. 2015;47: s72–S73. doi: 10.1097/01.PAT.0000461520.64127.87. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zomerlei TA, Samarghandi A, Terando AM.. Primary squamous cell carcinoma arising from a breast implant capsule. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(12):e586. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Olsen DL, Keeney GL, Chen B, et al. Breast implant capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma: a report of 2 cases. Hum Pathol. 2017;67:94–100. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Buchanan PJ, Chopra VK, Walker KL, et al. Primary squamous cell carcinoma arising from a breast implant capsule: a case report and review of the literature. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(7): 97–102. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Resetkova E. Breast implant capsule-associated pathology: from "common" to "rare" to "unique. Virchows Arch. 2018;473(suppl 1):S51. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zhou YM, Chaudhry HE, Shah A, et al. Breast squamous cell carcinoma following breast augmentation. Cureus. 2018;10(10):e3405. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Alfaro L, Roca MJ, Jimenez A, et al. Breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2019;475(suppl 1):S64. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Goel P, Gould DJ, Kim AW, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma following multiple revision breast surgeries with massive chest wall reconstruction via flow-through double ALT free flaps. Eur J Plast Surg. 2019;42(5):517–522. doi: 10.1007/s00238-019-01525-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Zikiryakhodzhaev AD, Khakimova SG, Rasskazova EA, et al. Breast implant-capsule associated squamous cell carcinoma: case report. Malignant Tumours. 2021;10(4):30–37. 2020-10-4-30-37 doi: 10.18027/2224-5057-. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Goldberg MT, Llaneras J, Willson TD, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma arising in breast implant capsules. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;86(3):268–272. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Liu Z, Liu C, Zhao C, et al. Breast prosthetic implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma: a case report and literature review. (Preprint, Version 1). Research Square. 2021. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-141167/v1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Soni SE, Laun JC, Beard AS, et al. Breast implant capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma during pregnancy: a mimicker of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(4):926e–928e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Whaley RD, Aldrees R, Dougherty RE, et al. Breast implant capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma: report of 2 patients. Int J Surg Pathol. 2022;30(8):900–907. doi: 10.1177/10668969221086940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vorstenbosch J, Chu JJ, Ariyan CE, et al. Clinical implications and management of non-BIA-ALCL breast implant capsular pathology. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151(1):20e–30e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Xia Z, Han B, Wang L, et al. Breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma in a male patient: a case report and review of the medical literature. Front Surg. 2022;9:983611. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.983611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rosenberg K, McGillen P, Zanfagnin V, et al. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the breast associated with breast augmentation implant capsule. J Surg Oncol. 2023;128(4):495–501. doi: 10.1002/jso.27364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Badri D, Copertino N.. Breast implant capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and case presentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024;48(12):2287–2293. doi: 10.1007/s00266-023-03693-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.van Diest PJ, Beekman WH, Hage JJ.. Pathology of silicone leakage from breast implants. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51(7):493–497. doi: 10.1136/jcp.51.7.493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) , Amin MB, Edge SGreene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th edition. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. American Joint Commission on Cancer; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Santanelli di Pompeo F, Firmani G, Stanzani E, et al. Breast implants and the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the breast: a systematic literature review and epidemiologic study. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44(7):sjae023–768. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Luini A, Aguilar M, Gatti G, et al. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast, an unusual disease with worse prognosis: the experience of the European Institute of Oncology and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;101(3):349–353. doi: 10.1007/s10549-006-9301-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Jung SY, Kim HY, Nam BH, et al. Worse prognosis of metaplastic breast cancer patients than other patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(3):627–637. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0780-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hennessy BT, Krishnamurthy S, Giordano S, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(31):7827–7835. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.9589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hennessy BT, Giordano S, Broglio K, et al. Biphasic metaplastic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the breast. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(4):605–613. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Rakha EA, Tan PH, Varga Z, et al. Prognostic factors in metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: a multi-institutional study. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(2):283–289. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Yamaguchi R, Horii R, Maeda I, et al. Clinicopathologic study of 53 metaplastic breast carcinomas: their elements and prognostic implications. Hum Pathol. 2010;41(5):679–685. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.McCart Reed AE, Kalaw E, Nones K, et al. Phenotypic and molecular dissection of metaplastic breast cancer and the prognostic implications. J Pathol. 2019;247(2):214–227. doi: 10.1002/path.5184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Schroeder MC, Rastogi P, Geyer CE, Jr, et al. Early and locally advanced metaplastic breast cancer: presentation and survival by receptor status in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 2010–2014. Oncologist. 2018;23(4):481–488. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Paul Wright G, Davis AT, Koehler TJ, et al. Hormone receptor status does not affect prognosis in metaplastic breast cancer: a population-based analysis with comparison to infiltrating ductal and lobular carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(11):3497–3503. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3782-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Tseng WH, Martinez SR.. Metaplastic breast cancer: to radiate or not to radiate? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(1):94–103. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1198-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. American Society of Plastic Surgeons [ASPS] . ASPS statement on Breast Implant Associated-Squamous Cell Carcinoma (BIA-SCC); 2022, September 8. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/asps-statement-on-breast-implant-associated-squamous-cell-carcinoma. (access on may 1th).
- 41.Glasberg SB, Sommers CA, McClure GT.. Breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma: initial review and early recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023; 11(6):e5072. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Reis-Filho JS, Milanezi F, Steele D, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like tumours. Histopathology. 2006;49(1):10–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Rakha EA, Coimbra ND, Hodi Z, et al. Immunoprofile of metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. Histopathology. 2017;70(6):975–985. doi: 10.1111/his.13159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Miettinen M, McCue PA, Sarlomo-Rikala M, et al. GATA3: a multispecific but potentially useful marker in surgical pathology: a systematic analysis of 2500 epithelial and nonepithelial tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(1):13–22. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182a0218f. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Wang M, Chen PP, Cai G.. GATA3 expression in primary lung carcinomas: correlation with histopathologic features and TTF-1, napsin A, and p40 expression. Hum Pathol. 2023; 135:93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2023.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Giroux V, Rustgi AK.. Metaplasia: tissue injury adaptation and a precursor to the dysplasia-cancer sequence. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(10):594–604. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2017.68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Alikhan MB, Nassar A, Mansoor I.. Squamous metaplasia on the breast implant capsule. Int J Surg Pathol. 2010;18(6):570–574. doi: 10.1177/1066896908329587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Lim GH, Alcantara VS, Ng RP, et al. Patterns of breast cancer second recurrences in patients after mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;196(3):583–589. doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06772-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227–1232. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Yamashita N, Tokunaga E, Yamamoto H, et al. The local recurrence of breast cancer with squamous metaplasia and obvious histological heterogeneity. Anticancer Res. 2017;37(9):5249–5254. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.11949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Zoltan TB, Konick L, Coleman RJ.. Pure squamous cell carcinoma of the breast in a patient with previous adenocarcinoma of the breast: a case report and review of the literature. Am Surg. 2001;67(7):671–673. doi: 10.1177/000313480106700717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Porzio R, Cordini C, Orsi N, et al. Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the breast after cured bilateral breast cancer. In Vivo. 2014;28(6):1155–1158. Nov-Dec [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article.