Table 2. Characterization of patients within the cohort who developed subsequent distant metastatic disease or had local lymph node involvement at the time of surgery.

Patient	Metastatic event	Age, years	Lesion growth pattern	Time to metastatic event (days)	Time to positive sentinel node (days)	Lesion laterality	Size (cm)	Extent (cm)	Lumpectomy first	ER/PR/HER2	Mastectomy laterality	Grade	Microinvasion	Endocrine therapy	Genetic testing	Genetic Mutations
#1	Distant	40–44	Diffuse	2,911	N/A	Unilateral	Missing	7	Yes	ER+PR+HER2−	Unilateral	Low-intermediate	No	No	Yes	No
#2	Distant	45–49	Diffuse	2,311	N/A	Bilateral	Missing	11†	No	ER+PR+	Bilateral	Intermediate	No	No	Yes	No
#3	Distant	40–44	Missing	633	N/A	Unilateral	8††	8††	No	ER−PR−	Bilateral	High	No	No	Yes	No‡
#4	Distant	50–54	Diffuse	344	N/A	Unilateral	1.4	8	No	ER−PR−HER2−	Unilateral	High	Yes	No	No	N/A
#5	Distant	35–39	Missing	1,743	N/A	Unilateral	8.5††	8.5††	No	ER−PR−	Bilateral	High	Yes	No	Yes	No
#6	SLNB	50–54	Diffuse	N/A	117	Unilateral	2	8	Yes	ER+PR+HER2+	Unilateral	High	No	No	Yes	No
#7	SLNB	40–44	Multifocal	N/A	78	Unilateral	0.9	Missing	Yes	Missing	Unilateral	Intermediate-high	No	Yes	No	N/A
#8	SLNB	65–69	Multifocal	N/A	76	Bilateral	0.4	Missing	Yes	Missing	Mastectomy one side, lumpectomy other	Low	No	No	No	N/A
#9	SLNB	50–54	Missing	N/A	21	Unilateral	2.5†	2.5†	No	ER+PR+	Unilateral	Intermediate-high	Yes	Yes	No	N/A

^†, in addition to the ductal carcinoma in situ, this patient had extensive bilateral lobular carcinoma in situ. This patient was also the only patient among the metastatic cohort who was able to be classified by imaging findings and not by pathology report. ^††, size was listed in pathology report but it was not designated whether this represented the largest focus of disease or if these was multifocal or diffuse disease and size was referring to spread. ^‡, no identifiable mutation, but one variant of undetermined significance in MSH2. SLNB, sentinel lymph node biopsy.