Search

Histologic special types of breast cancer (BC) account for ~20% of BCs. Large sequencing studies of metastatic BC have focused on invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type (IDC-NSTs). We sought to define the repertoire of somatic genetic alterations of metastatic histologic special types of BC. We reanalyzed targeted capture sequencing data of 309 special types of BC, including metastatic and primary invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs; n = 132 and n = 127, respectively), mixed mucinous (n = 5 metastatic and n = 14 primary), micropapillary (n = 12 metastatic and n = 8 primary), and metaplastic BCs (n = 6 metastatic and n = 5 primary), and compared metastatic histologic special types of BC to metastatic IDC-NSTs matched according to clinicopathologic characteristics and to primary special type BCs. The genomic profiles of metastatic and primary special types of BC were similar. Important differences, however, were noted: metastatic ILCs harbored a higher frequency of genetic alterations in TP53, ESR1, FAT1, RFWD2, and NF1 than primary ILCs, and in CDH1, PIK3CA, ERBB2, TBX3, NCOR1, and RFWD2 than metastatic IDC-NSTs. Metastatic ILCs displayed a higher mutational burden, and more frequently dominant APOBEC mutational signatures than primary ILCs and matched metastatic IDC-NSTs. ESR1 and NCOR mutations were frequently detected in metastatic mixed mucinous BCs, whereas PIK3CA and TP53 were the most frequently altered genes in metastatic micropapillary and metaplastic BCs, respectively. Taken together, primary and metastatic BCs histologic special types have remarkably similar repertoires of somatic genetic alterations. Metastatic ILCs more frequently harbor APOBEC mutational signatures than primary ILCs and metastatic IDC-NSTs.

Primary pleomorphic adenomas (PAs) and mucoepidermoid carcinomas (MECs) of the breast are vanishingly rare. Here we sought to determine whether breast PAs and MECs would be underpinned by the fusion genes reported to occur in their salivary gland counterparts. Our study included three breast PAs and one breast MEC, which were subjected to RNA sequencing (PAs, n = 2; MEC, n = 1) or to Archer FusionPlex sequencing (PA, n = 1). Our analyses revealed the presence of the HMGA2-WIF1 fusion gene in breast PA3, the CTNNB1-PLAG1 fusion gene in breast PA2, and the CRTC1-MAML2 fusion gene in the breast MEC analyzed (1/1). No oncogenic fusion genes were detected in breast PA1, and no additional oncogenic fusion genes were detected in the cases studied. The presence of the fusion genes identified was validated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (n = 1), reverse transcription-PCR (n = 1), or by both methods (n = 1). Taken together, our findings indicate that PAs and MECs arising in the breast resemble their salivary gland counterparts not only phenotypically but also at the genetic level. Furthermore, our data suggest that the molecular analysis of breast PAs and MECs might constitute a useful tool to aid in their differential diagnosis.