DOI: 10.3390/medicina62061205 ISSN: 1648-9144

When Breast Cancer Meets the Uterus: A Quantitative Review of 105 Cases Spanning Four Decades

Tiberiu Augustin Georgescu, Antonia Carmen Georgescu, Maria Victoria Olinca

Background and Objectives: Uterine metastasis from breast carcinoma is rare but poses substantial diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) demonstrates a documented predilection for unusual metastatic patterns including the female genital tract, while tamoxifen-associated endometrial pathology may complicate diagnosis in breast cancer survivors. Materials and Methods: We performed a structured PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar search (1980–2025) for cases with histologically confirmed breast primary and uterine involvement; a pooled analysis of demographic, histological, molecular, and clinical variables was performed. Results: 105 individual cases were identified. ILC accounted for 58.0% of histologically classified cases despite representing only 10–15% of breast cancers. Endometrial involvement was present in 68.6%, myometrial in 25.7%, and cervical in 26.7%. Tamoxifen exposure was strongly associated with polyp-substrate metastasis (29.3% vs. 4.7%; Fisher’s exact p = 0.0009; OR 8.41, 95% CI 2.20–32.14). Abnormal uterine bleeding was the dominant presentation (68.1%); 19.8% were asymptomatic. Median latency was 36 months (range from 24 months before to 360 months after the breast cancer diagnosis). Conclusions: Uterine metastasis from breast carcinoma is dominated by invasive lobular histology and frequently involves tamoxifen-associated polyps. A combined immunohistochemical panel (GATA3, TRPS1, E-cadherin, hormone receptors, PAX8) is essential for distinguishing metastatic disease from primary uterine pathology. Endometrial sampling should be considered with a low threshold in breast cancer survivors with abnormal uterine bleeding, and breast imaging is warranted when discohesive cells are encountered without a known breast primary. These proportions describe the published case literature rather than population-based prevalence; because the evidence is limited to case reports and small series, they should not be read as the true frequency of uterine involvement among women with breast cancer.

More from our Archive