Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE Open Medical Case Reports logoLink to SAGE Open Medical Case Reports
. 2026 Jan 26;14:2050313X261417159. doi: 10.1177/2050313X261417159

Multiple gastrointestinal metastases in de novo invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: A case report and literature review

Linbo Zhu 1, Junqiang Li 2, Liyang Yang 3, Tiefeng Li 4, Pengbin Zhang 1, Pengfei Li 1, Yun Hong 5,✉
PMCID: PMC12835517  PMID: 41608229

Abstract

Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) metastases occur in only 0.6% of metastatic breast cancer cases, with invasive lobular carcinoma being the predominant histological subtype. Synchronous GIT metastases at the time of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) diagnosis are exceptionally uncommon. We report a case of de novo IDC presenting with synchronous, multifocal metastases in the stomach and colon. The diagnosis was prompted by significantly elevated tumor markers and confirmed via endoscopic examination and biopsy. This case underscores the rarity of GIT metastases, particularly in IDC, and highlights the critical need for a high index of suspicion in the face of markedly elevated tumor markers, even without gastrointestinal symptoms. While contrast-enhanced computed tomography has limited sensitivity for detecting small GIT lesions, endoscopic biopsy with immunohistochemical analysis remains the gold standard for diagnosis. Accompanying this report is a systematic literature review on breast cancer metastases to the GIT.

Keywords: breast neoplasms, invasive ductal carcinoma, gastrointestinal metastases from breast cancer, synchronous metastases

Introduction

Breast cancer remains the most prevalent malignancy among women worldwide, 1 with distant metastases (particularly to bone, lung, liver, and brain) representing the primary cause of mortality. In contrast, gastrointestinal tract (GIT) metastasis of breast cancer is clinically uncommon, 2 occurring predominantly in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). These metastases typically manifest as isolated gastrointestinal involvement years after the initial breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.2,3 Here we present a rare case of de novo invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with synchronous, multifocal gastric and colonic metastases. Through a comprehensive review of current literature, we systematically analyze the epidemiological characteristics, diagnostic approaches, therapeutic strategies, and prognostic factors associated with breast cancer GIT metastases. Our objective is to enhance clinicians’ understanding of this distinctive metastatic pattern.

Case report

A 45-year-old female was admitted to our gynecology department with the chief complaints of “menorrhagia and anemia.” Her past medical history was unremarkable. Her obstetric history was recorded as 1-0-3-1 (one full-term delivery, no preterm births, three spontaneous abortions, and one living child). She had undergone one cesarean section. Her last menstrual period was 7 April 2025. Family history was significant for paternal gastric cancer and maternal lung cancer.

Initial evaluation revealed a white blood cell count of 8.2 × 109/L, red blood cell count of 2.77 × 1012/L, hemoglobin of 65 g/L, and platelet count of 80 × 109/L. Serum tumor markers showed elevated levels of Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) (2.59 ng/mL), Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) (207 ng/mL), CA-125 (267 U/mL), CA-153 (2434 U/mL), and CA-199 (505.2 U/mL). Gynecological ultrasound demonstrated a scarred, enlarged uterus with thickened heterogeneous endometrium, uterine fibroids, and bilateral small ovarian cysts. Breast ultrasound identified an irregular mass measuring 6.0 × 5.0 cm with microcalcifications (BI-RADS 4c) in the left breast, accompanied by left axillary lymphadenopathy. Unenhanced computed tomography (CT) revealed multiple pulmonary micronodules, left axillary lymphadenopathy, and diffuse osteolytic lesions. Brain magnetic resonance imaging ruled out intracranial metastasis. Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT showed no definite gastrointestinal mass.

The patient exhibited markedly elevated serum tumor markers (CEA, CA-125, CA-153, and CA-199) while reporting no gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, or hematochezia. Endoscopy identified lesions in both the stomach and colon. Gastric examination showed three slightly elevated lesions (0.4–0.6 cm) on the greater curvature, with well-demarcated borders and yellowish discoloration under white light. Narrow-band imaging (NBI) characteristics included prominent surface vasculature, microvascular dilation, and glandular loss (Figure 1). In the colon, two discrete hemispherical translucent yellow lesions (0.3 cm) with whitish internal features were found in the transverse and descending colon; they displayed indistinct margins on NBI (Figure 2). Deep biopsies were obtained from all lesions for histopathological evaluation.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Gastric metastasis.

Three slightly elevated lesions were observed on the greater curvature of the upper gastric body under endoscopy (indicated by blue arrows). (a) Two adjacent lesions under NBI. (b) Another lesion under white light.

NBI: Narrow-band imaging

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Colonic metastasis.

Two hemispheric elevated lesions were identified under NBI colonoscopy (indicated by blue arrows). (a) Lesion in the transverse colon. (b) Lesion in the descending colon.

NBI: Narrow-band imaging

Core needle biopsy of the left breast mass confirmed IDC (Figure 3) with the following immunohistochemical profile: ER (2+, 40%), PR (+, 10%), Her2 (1+), E-Cadherin (+), P63 (−), CK5/6 (−), Ki67(50%+), GATA3(+), CDX-2(−). Histopathological evaluation confirmed metastatic breast carcinoma across multiple sites: gastric biopsy demonstrated carcinoma of breast origin (CDX-2−, GATA3+, MUC6−, ER 2+, PR 1+, Her2 1+) (Figure 4), colonic biopsies showed similar immunohistochemical results (CDX-2−, GATA3 +, CEA weak+, Ki67 high, ER 2+, PR 1+, Her2 1+), and bone marrow biopsy revealed metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary (Figure 5). Representative Hematoxylin-eosin and immunohistochemistry images are depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of breast tumor (×200) (a) HE staining (b) CK5-6 (−) (c) P63 (−) (d) E-Cadherin (+) (e) GATA3 (+) (f) CDX-2 (−) (g) ER (+) (h) PR (+) (i) Her2 (1+).

HE: Hematoxylin-eosin; ER: Estrogen receptor; PR: Progesterone receptor.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of gastric metastasis (×200) (a) HE staining (b) GATA3 (+) (c) CDX-2 (−) (d) ER (+) (e) PR (+) (f) Her2 (1+).

HE: Hematoxylin-eosin; ER: Estrogen receptor; PR: Progesterone receptor.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of bone marrow biopsy (×200) (a) HE staining (b) CKpan (+) (c) GATA3 (+) (d) ER (+) (e) CDX2 (−).

HE: Hematoxylin-eosin; ER: Estrogen receptor.

The patient was therefore diagnosed with IDC of the left breast exhibiting synchronous metastatic involvement of the stomach, colon, bone, and bone marrow, classified as cT3NxM1, Stage IV, Luminal B subtype. Initial treatment included ovarian function suppression (OFS) combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (ribociclib) and an aromatase inhibitor (exemestane), with continued clinical monitoring.

Discussion

Breast cancer represents the most prevalent malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide. 1 Despite the broad implementation of screening programs, 3.6%–6.0% of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases still present as stage IV disease annually. 2 Application of novel antitumor agents has progressively improved overall survival rates; however, prolonged survival has led to an increasing incidence of metastatic recurrence in clinical settings.

Breast cancer predominantly metastasizes to regional lymph nodes, bones, lungs, liver, and brain. In contrast, GIT metastases are notably rare (clinical incidence: 0.6%; autopsy prevalence: 6%–18%). 3 This marked disparity suggests substantial underdiagnosis of GIT metastases in clinical practice. This diagnostic challenge primarily arises from prolonged disease-free intervals, asymptomatic clinical courses, and nonspecific symptoms that are commonly misinterpreted as side effects of systemic cancer treatment. 4 Current evidence suggests that Helicobacter pylori colonization, inflammatory cell infiltration, and chemokine signaling collectively establish a tumor-tropic microenvironment that facilitates GIT metastasis in breast cancer. 5

Notably, while IDC constitutes the overwhelming majority of histological subtypes, gastrointestinal metastases arise predominantly from ILC. 6 E-cadherin deficiency in ILC, 7 inherent lobular cellular tropism, 6 and GIT microenvironmental compatibility 7 may be responsible for the difference in the metastatic patterns of the two subtypes. The specific reasons for the occurrence of gastrointestinal metastasis in IDC are currently unclear. The expression level of Ki67 is one of the indicators reflecting the proliferation ability of breast cancer cells. In this case, the Ki67 of breast cancer focus is 50%, which belongs to high expression. Therefore, we speculate that the multiple gastrointestinal metastases of IDC in this case may be related to the high level of Ki67.

The temporal spectrum of GIT metastasis development ranges from synchronous presentation to delayed occurrence exceeding three decades post-primary diagnosis (median interval: 6.5 years),2,8,9 with metachronous presentations accounting for most cases.3–9 Synchronous GIT metastasis at initial breast cancer diagnosis is exceptionally rare. In extraordinary instances, GIT symptoms may serve as the initial clinical manifestation prompting subsequent identification of breast cancer.2,10 While gastric and colorectal sites demonstrate predilection, metastases have been reported throughout the entire gastrointestinal continuum.3,6 However, existing literature primarily consists of case reports focusing on single GIT organ metastases, with ILC being the predominant tumor type. This case represents an exceptionally rare presentation of de novo breast IDC with synchronous multifocal metastases involving both gastric and colonic sites. Of concern, while isolated gastric metastases are uncommon (representing only 5.8% of metastatic breast cancer cases), multiorgan involvement represents the predominant pattern. 2 The concurrent bone metastases and bone marrow infiltration observed in this patient underscore the imperative for comprehensive systemic assessment in such clinical scenarios. As in this case, this patient’s menorrhagia and anemia were considered to be caused by the suppression of hematopoietic function caused by bone marrow infiltration of breast cancer, which then led to the reduction of red blood cells and platelets.

Our research team conducted a literature search in May 2025 for articles published over the past two decades, using the search terms “breast cancer/neoplasms” AND “gastrointestinal metastasis/metastases.” Searches were performed in PubMed (English) and CNKI and WANFANG (Chinese). The retrieved articles were comprised mainly of case reports and case series, along with several literature reviews. We also conducted further reading of key references from these publications. Articles were excluded if they addressed occult breast cancer (with no detectable primary lesion), lacked histopathological details of breast tumor, or described metachronous gastrointestinal metastases (identified during the follow-up period). As demonstrated in Table 1, presenting our compiled case data,11–36 these findings further substantiate the aforementioned observation. However, the limitation of some literature lies in the lack of expression data for relevant indicators such as HER2 and E-cadherin, especially for GIT metastases.

Table 1.

A comprehensive review of metastatic breast cancer with synchronous gastrointestinal metastases at initial diagnosis reported in the past two decades.

Case no. Studies Age (Year) Primary breast cancer Tumor size (cm) Metastasis site of GIT Other metastasis site ER PR HER2 E-cadherin Outcomes/Follow-up
Breast GIT Breast GIT Breast GIT Breast GIT
1 Haberstich 2005 11 78 IDC NR rectum – + + + + NR NR NR + Alive at 22 months
2 Sato 2007 12 62 ILC diffuse lesions duodenum bone – – – – – – – – Alive at 18 months
3 Vennapusa 2010 13 61 ILC 2.0 stomach bone + NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
4 Arrangoiz 2011 14 70 ILC 7.4 stomach, duodenum, rectum bone, peritoneum + + – rectum –/ stomach + – rectum –/ stomach NR NR NR Alive at 12 months
5 Carcoforo 2012 15 73 ILC 0.5 colon omentum, peritoneum, pelvic cavity + NR + NR – NR NR NR Died at 12 months
6 Ambroggi 2012 16 40 IDC NR rectum – + + + – – – NR NR Alive at 49 months
7 Koike 2014 17 54 ILC NR stomach bone + + + + – NR NR NR Died at 60 months
8 Koike 2014 17 54 IDC NR stomach bone + + + + NR NR NR NR Died at 27 months
9 Kayılıoğlu 2014 18 52 ILC 1.2 stomach NR + + + + NR NR – NR Alive at 12 months
10 Molino 2014 19 68 ILC 2.5 duodenal ampulla – + + + NR – NR NR NR Alive at 12 months
11 Zuhair 2015 20 47 ILC 0.8 stomach, duodenum – NR + NR – NR – NR NR Alive at 36 months
12 Dória 2015 21 66 ILC 4.0 stomach liver, peritoneum + + + NR – NR – – NR
13 Soobrah 2015 22 42 ILC 3.0 appendix orbit, peritoneum + + + + – – NR NR NR
14 Xu 2017 23 73 ILC 1.2 stomach bone, lung, pleura, skin + stomach +/ skin + + stomach +/ skin + + NR NR stomach NR/ skin – Alive at 13 months
15 Khan 2017 24 56 ILC NR stomach, small intestine, colon bone, pancreas, urinary bladder NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Died after diagnosis
16 Martins 2019 25 43 ILC NR stomach, colon orbit + NR – NR NR NR NR NR NR
17 Hong 2019 26 65 ILC NR stomach NR + + – NR – – NR NR NR
18 Hong 2019 26 45 IDC NR stomach NR + + + + – – NR NR NR
19 Zengel 2022 10 65 ILC 1.6 stomach, colon bone + + + – – NR – NR NR
20 Namikawa 2023 27 68 ILC NR stomach bone + + NR NR NR NR – NR Alive at 9 months
21 Sun 2023 2 58 ILC 2.1 stomach bone + + – – – NR – NR NR
22 Otsuka 2023 28 70 ILC 1.9 colon bone + + + – – NR NR NR Died at 4 months
23 Otsuka 2023 28 80 ILC 1.4 colon peritoneum + + + NR – NR NR – Died at 14 months
24 Ayadi 2024 29 53 ILC NR stomach peritoneum, bone + NR NR NR – NR NR NR Died at 5 months
25 Cheng 2024 30 52 ILC NR stomach bone + + + + – – NR NR NR
26 Lu 2013 31 41 ILC 2.9 ileum bone + + + + – NR NR NR Alive at 6 months
27 Liu 2014 32 59 ILC 4.0 stomach – + + + + – NR – – NR
28 Jiang 2017 33 42 ILC 3.7 colon pancreas, spleen + + + – – NR NR NR NR
29 Liu 2021 34 60 ILC 2.1 stomach NR + + + + – – – – Died at 20 months
30 Ge 2021 35 72 ILC NR colon NR + + – – – NR NR NR NR
31 Zhao 2022 36 69 IDC 3.0 colon uterus – – – – – – NR NR NR
Open in a new tab

GIT metastases may present with varied clinical manifestations, ranging from asymptomatic courses to nonspecific symptoms (e.g. abdominal discomfort, nausea) or severe complications (e.g. luminal obstruction, hemorrhage). 6 Current diagnostic approaches incorporate surveillance endoscopy, 3 endoscopic evaluation prompted by elevated tumor markers,4,6 and emergent surgical interventions for acute complications. 2 Given these considerations, ongoing oncological surveillance remains crucial for breast cancer patients, especially those with ILC histology or emerging GIT symptoms. Notably, our case demonstrates that profound tumor marker elevation may indicate GIT metastasis even in asymptomatic patients, necessitating endoscopic evaluation. Thus, in breast cancer patients, elevated gastrointestinal tumor markers – despite the absence of specific digestive symptoms – should raise clinical suspicion for GIT metastasis.

The majority of patients with metastatic breast cancer develop elevated levels of CA-153 (most prevalent), CEA, and CA-125, 37 and Luminal breast cancers exhibit the highest incidence of tumor marker elevation among all molecular subtypes.37,38 Of clinical significance, increased CA-153 and CEA levels demonstrate strong correlations with visceral involvement and multiorgan metastatic disease.38–40 Mounting evidence supports the role of tumor markers as important prognostic indicators in metastatic breast cancer, 37 with CA-153 levels demonstrating a particularly strong inverse correlation with progression-free survival.38,39 This Luminal subtype case exhibited pan-tumor marker elevation, with profound increases in CA-153 and CEA levels. Confirmatory examinations substantiated the previously reported association with multiorgan metastases, indicating an aggressive disease phenotype.

Therapeutic standardization remains elusive for breast cancer GIT metastases. Personalized systemic therapy based on molecular subtypes, mainly chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, has been shown to improve survival and quality of life. 2 Surgical intervention is generally restricted to palliative indications, such as managing gastrointestinal obstruction or hemorrhage, with no proven survival advantage. 6 Emerging evidence documents tumor regression with palbociclib-anastrozole combination therapy in hormone receptor-positive cases. 7 In accordance with advanced breast cancer guidelines, our patient received OFS combined with CDK4/6 inhibition and aromatase inhibitor therapy, and the therapeutic response is under close monitoring. While the literature reports a median survival of 24–36 months for breast cancer patients with GIT metastases, 2 it should be noted that 84% of these cases involved metachronous rather than synchronous metastases. Our patient presented with gastric, colonic, osseous, and bone marrow metastases synchronous with the diagnosis of breast cancer (de novo stage IV), likely indicating worse outcomes.

Conclusion

This report describes a rare case of de novo breast IDC presenting with synchronous gastric and colonic metastases detected by endoscopy due to elevated tumor markers, despite the absence of digestive symptoms. Our comprehensive literature review synthesizes current knowledge on the epidemiology, diagnostic challenges, therapeutic strategies, and prognosis of breast cancer GIT metastases. This case highlights that although GIT metastases are rare in breast cancer, particularly in IDC, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when encountering significantly elevated or progressively increasing serum tumor markers. Contrast-enhanced CT has limited sensitivity for detecting small GIT metastatic lesions, whereas endoscopic biopsy with immunohistochemical analysis remains the diagnostic gold standard.

Footnotes

Ethical considerations: Ethics committee approval was not required according to the declaration of the Ethics Committee of Beilun District People’s Hospital.

Consent to participate: We obtained written informed consent from the patient reported in this study.

Consent for publication: All authors have agreed to publish this paper.

Author contributions: L.B.Z. drafted this manuscript. J.Q.L., L.Y.Y., T.F.L., P.B.Z., and P.F.L. were involved in the acquisition of data and preparing the figures. Y.H. conceived of the study and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by grants from the medical and health research project of Zhejiang province, China (No.2025KY1456, 2020KY140) and Beilun health technology project of Ningbo, Zhejiang, China (No. 2024BLWSYB001)

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement: All data and materials are freely available upon request. For further information, please contact Dr. Yun Hong (1312014@zju.edu.cn), who is responsible for the dataset.

References

  • 1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2024; 74(3): 229-263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Sun L, Liu JJ, Guo M, et al. First diagnosed invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast combined with gastric metastasis and bone metastasis: a case report and review of the literature. BMC Womens Health 2023; 23(1): 133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kobayashi M, Tashima T, Nagata K, et al. Colorectal and gastric metastases from lobular breast cancer that resembled superficial neoplastic lesions. Clin J Gastroenterol 2021; 14(1): 103–108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Botto I, Moiteiro Cruz R, Noronha Ferreira C, et al. Simultaneous gastric and colonic metastasis of breast cancer. ACG Case Rep J 2023; 10(10): e01168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Villa Guzmán JC, Espinosa J, Cervera R, et al. Gastric and colon metastasis from breast cancer: case report, review of the literature, and possible underlying mechanisms. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2016; 9: 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Faraz A, Kowalczyk S, Hendrixson M. Diffuse gastrointestinal metastasis from breast cancer: a case report and literature review. Cureus 2024; 16(7): e63608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Sasaki A, Masuda S, Yoshioka T, et al. Therapeutic effects of CDK4/6 inhibitors in gastric and colonic metastases from breast cancer: a case report. Cureus 2024; 16(1): e52765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Zhong CH, Fang XF, Zhu LZ, et al. Report of two cases and a systematic review of breast cancer with gastrointestinal metastasis. Turk J Gastroenterol 2019; 30(11): 997–1000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Noor A, Lopetegui-Lia N, Desai A, et al. Breast cancer metastasis masquerading as primary colon and gastric cancer: a case report. Am J Case Rep 2020; 21: e917376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Zengel B, Çavdar D, Özlem Özdemir, et al. Gastrointestinal tract metastases of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: an immunohistochemical survey algorithm. Eur J Breast Health 2022; 18(4): 375–380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Haberstich R, Tuech JJ, Wilt M, et al. Anal localization as first manifestation of metastatic ductal breast carcinoma. Tech Coloproctol 2005; 9(3): 237–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Sato T, Muto I, Hasegawa M, et al. Breast signet-ring cell lobular carcinoma presenting with duodenal obstruction and acute pancreatitis. Asian J Surg 2007; 30(3): 220–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Vennapusa B, Oman SA, Parasher G, et al. C-kit-positive gastric metastasis of lobular carcinoma of the breast masquerading as gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Breast Cancer 2010; 17: 303–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Arrangoiz R, Papavasiliou P, Dushkin H, et al. Case report and literature review: metastatic lobular carcinoma of the breast an unusual presentation. Int J Surg Case Rep 2011; 2(8): 301–305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Carcoforo P, Raiji MT, Langan RC, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast presenting as gastrointestinal obstruction: a mini review. J Cancer 2012; 3: 328–332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Ambroggi M, Stroppa EM, Mordenti P, et al. Metastatic breast cancer to the gastrointestinal tract: report of five cases and review of the literature. Int J Breast Cancer 2012; 2012: 439023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Koike K, Kitahara K, Higaki M, et al. Clinicopathological features of gastric metastasis from breast cancer in three cases. Breast Cancer 2014; 21(5): 629–634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Kayılıoğlu SI, Akyol C, Esen E, et al. Gastric metastasis of ectopic breast cancer mimicking axillary metastasis of primary gastric cancer. Case Rep Gastrointest Med 2014: 2014: 232165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Molino C, Mocerino C, Braucci A, et al. Pancreatic solitary and synchronous metastasis from breast cancer: a case report and systematic review of controversies in diagnosis and treatment. World J Surg Oncol 2014: 12: 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Zuhair AR, Maron AR. Occult bilateral invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast presenting as gastroduodenal metastases: a case report. Breast Dis 2015; 35(1): 63–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Dória MT, Maesaka JY, Martins Filho SN, et al. Gastric metastasis as the first manifestation of an invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Autops Case Rep 2015; 5(3): 49–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Soobrah R, Tsang F, Grassi V, et al. Synchronous orbital and gastrointestinal metastases from breast cancer: a case report and review of literature. Case Rep Oncol Med 2015: 2015: 282790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Xu L, Liang S, Yan N, et al. Metastatic gastric cancer from breast carcinoma: a report of 78 cases. Oncol Lett 2017; 14(4): 4069–4077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Khan I, Malik R, Khan A, et al. Breast cancer metastases to the gastrointestinal tract presenting with anemia and intra-abdominal bleed. Cureus 2017; 9(7): e1429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Martins Figueiredo L, Horta DV, Reis JA. A rare presentation of breast cancer. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2019; 26: 438–440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Hong J, Kim Y, Cho J, et al. Clinical features and prognosis of breast cancer with gastric metastasis. Oncol Lett 2019; 17(2): 1833–1841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Namikawa T, Yokota K, Maeda H, et al. Gastric and bone metastases arising from invasive lobular carcinoma with ductal carcinoma occurring in one breast synchronously. Anticancer Res 2023; 43(8): 3701–3707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Otsuka S, Komuro K, Suzuoki M, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast with colonic metastasis: a case series of three patients. Surg Case Rep 2023; 9(1): 181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Ayadi S, Monastiri S, Safta AB, et al. Gastric metastasis and peritoneal carcinosis revealing primary breast cancer: an unusual presentation. Future Sci OA 2024; 10(1): FSO970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Cheng M, Jia Z, Zhang G, et al. Gastric metastasis from breast cancer: five cases and a single-institutional review. J Int Med Res 2024; 52(3): 3000605241233988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Lu LQ, Liu H. [A case of small bowel obstruction due to small bowel metastasis from bilateral primary breast cancer]. Cancer Res Clin 2013; 25(10): 717–718. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Liu YY, Dong L, Qi XS, et al. [A case of gastric metastatic breast cancer with literature review]. J Clin Exp Pathol 2014; 30(7): 784–786. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Jiang WJ, Yu B, Zhao CL, et al. [A case of colonic, pancreatic caudal and splenic metastases from breast cancer]. Chin J Breast Dis (Electronic Edition) 2017; 11(6): 375–377. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Liu LJ, Liang YX, He DL. [A case of gastric metastatic breast cancer]. Chin Clin Oncol 2021; 26(2): 186–188. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Ge XC, Yin DY, Zhuang J, et al. [A case of occult breast cancer with metastatic carcinoma of the colon]. Chin J Gen Surg 2021; 36(6): 481. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Zhao YY, Xue DF, Li P, et al. [Clinicopathological analysis of gastrointestinal metastases from breast cancer]. J Prac Med Techn 2022; 29(11): 1136–1138. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Yerushalmi R, Tyldesley S, Kennecke H, et al. Tumor markers in metastatic breast cancer subtypes: frequency of elevation and correlation with outcome. Ann Oncol 2012; 23(2): 338–345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Geng B, Liang M, Ye X, et al. Association of CA 15-3 and CEA with clinicopathological parameters in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Mol Clin Oncol 2015; 3(1): 232–236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Yang Y, Zhang H, Zhang M, et al. Elevation of serum CEA and CA15-3 levels during antitumor therapy predicts poor therapeutic response in advanced breast cancer patients. Oncol Lett 2017; 14(6): 7549–7556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Lee JS, Park S, Park JM, et al. Elevated levels of serum tumor markers CA 15-3 and CEA are prognostic factors for diagnosis of metastatic breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 141(3): 477–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from SAGE Open Medical Case Reports are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES