Table 5.
Tumoral heterogeneity in other studies.
| Study | Year | Number of Patients | Mismatch in | N = (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lang et al. [18] | 2017 | 156 | ER PR Grading Ki-67 HER2 |
6 (3.85%) 4 (2.56%) 6 (3.85%) 9 (5.77%) 2 (1.28%) |
| Baretta et al. [19] | 2015 | 4403 | ERP R |
422 (10%) 816 (19%) |
| Pekar et al. [20] * | 2014 | 110 | Histologic type Grading Molecular subtype |
16 (14.5%) 6 (5.5%) 11–14 (10–12.7%) |
| Buggi et al. [21] ** | 2012 | 113 | ER PR Grading Ki-67 HER2 |
5 (4.4%) 18 (15.9%) 21 (18.6%) 17 (15%) 11 (9.7%) |
| Choi et al. [22] | 2012 | 65 | ER PR HER2 Molecular subtypes |
2 (3%) 7 (11%) 4 (6%) 5 (8%) |
| Boros et al. [23] | 2008 | 91 | Histological type Grading |
11 (12.08%) 9 (9.89%) |
| Garimella et al. [24] | 2007 | 18 | ER PR |
0 (0%) 2 (11%) |
* The authors also reported that if phenotyping of the secondary foci was performed before therapy, the results would have influenced the therapy choice in eight patients. ** In this study, eleven patients received different adjuvant therapy than what would have been received if only the primary tumor was assessed. ER = estrogen receptor, PR = progesterone receptor; HER2 = Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2.