Table 5 A comparative table of IHC based TNBC subtyping studies

Studies inferred from Lehmann or Burstein subtypings

Our study

North West Arica

(n = 64)

50.11 y

53.1%

EGFR- and CK5 and/or CK14 + 

6.2%

EGFR + regardless of CK5 or CK14 positivity

17.1%

Vimentin + ,

E-cadherin, Claudins 3 & 7 diminished expression

9.4%

AR + 

Lowest mean age: 40.17 ± 8.68 y

4.7%

more than one subtype's phenotype is displayed

9.4%

Other scenarios

OS (P = 0.01)

LAR: 45.07

BL1: 30.88

MES: 27.23

Mix: 27.28

BL2: 18.94

Unclassified: 15.47

Kumar 2021 [19]

Chandigarh India

(n = 245)

50 y

13.1%

EGFR- and CK5 and/or CK14 + 

1.6%

EGFR + regardless of CK5 or CK14 positivity

28.6%

Vimentin + ,

E-cadherin, Claudins 3 & 7 diminished expression

16.7%

AR + 

Highest mean age: 55 y

15.1%

more than one subtype's phenotype is displayed

24.9%

Other scenarios

OS: The shorter OS are:

MES: 68.2 and Unclassified: 69.2 (But, P = 0.97)

DFS: BL2 median of 35.4 months (P = 0.011)

Choi 2012 [38]

South Korea

(n = 122)

47.5 y

22.1%

CK5/6 + and/or EGFR + 

23.0%

claudin 3, 4 & 7 negative and/or E-cadherin negative

9.8%

AR + 

Highest mean age: 56.9 ± 13.7

18.9%

characteristics of 2 different subtypes

26.2%

null tumors not belong to any types described

BL & Unc subtypes: less favorable prognosis

AR subtype: better prognosis than others

MES & Mix subtypes: intermediate prognosis

(not statistically significant)

Liu 2016 [36]

Jilin, China

(n = 140, table II)

54 years

53.9%

CK5/6 + or CK14

25.3%

vimentin + 

E-cadherin-; CD44 + CD24-/low phenotype;

All claudins low

11.7%

AR + 

Mean age NA but it is higher than BL (> 50y)

OS:

AR 96.3 m

Basal 75.8 m

MES 84.7 m

Yoo 2022 [20]

Seoul Korea

(n = 145)

55 years

18.6%

p16, EGFR, CK5/6, and p53

MES (30.3%), MUC1, SMAD4

IM (14.5%), (PDL1, TIL, CD8)

17.9%

AR

Highest mean age:

61.7 ± 10.4)

12.4%

No difference in OS was noted

Kim 2018 [39]

Seoul, South Korea

(n = 200)

NA

42.5%

(CK5/6 + and/or EGFR + ,

BL was further classified as BLIA (IDO1 + and FOXC1-) or BLIS type (IDO1- and FOXC1 +)

11.5%

claudin 3– and/or E-cadherin–,

11%

AR + 

LAR type was associated with older patient age (> 50 y)

30%

5%

RFS:

BLIS & unclassified: shortest RFS

LAR, BLIA, & BL: relatively favourable RFS

Inferred from “Fudan typing”

Zhao 2020 [21]

Shanghai China

(n = 212)

53.1 y

38.1%

BL immune-suppressed (BLIS): AR − , CD8 − , FOXC1 + 

IM: AR − , CD8 +),

M: AR − , CD8 − , FOXC1 − , DCLK1 + 

28.6%

AR + 

The most associated subtype to old age (> 50 y)

Unclassifiable (AR − , CD8 − , FOXC1 − , DCLK1 −)

IM (p = 0.002), LAR (p = 0.004), BLIS (p = 0.014) subtypes were associated with better RFS than the MES subtype

Leeha 2023 [10]

Thailand

(n = 195)

52.3 y

52.8%;

BL immune-suppressed (BLIS): AR − , CD8 − , FOXC1 + 

17.4%;

IM: AR − , CD8 +),

0.5%;

M: AR − , CD8 − , FOXC1 − , DCLK1 + 

19%

AR + 

Highest mean age: 57.7

(AR − , CD8 − , FOXC1 − , DCLK1 −)0.10.3%

LAR and BLIS subtypes were significantly associated with poorer OS compared to the IM subtype in univariate analysis, however, only BLIS was significant in multivariate analysis

Studies that characterized only the Basal-like TNBC

Nielsen 2004 [40]

NA. British Columbia Cancer Agency trials (between the late 1970s and 1990) (n = 930)

NA

76%

ER-, HER2- CK5/6 + and/or EGFR + 

Cheang 2008 [37]

NA. British Columbia Cancer Agency (1986–1992)

(n = 636)

85.5% aged > 40 y

52.58%

5 markers: ER-, PR-, HER2-, CK5/6 + and/or EGFR + 

Sutton 2010 [41]

Dallas (USA)

(n = 105)

49 y

65.71%

ER-, PR-, HER2-, CK5/6 + and/or EGFR + 

LAR (luminal androgen receptor); MES (mesenchymal), BL1 or 2 (Basal like 1 or 2), CK (cytokeratin), CLD (Claudin); VIM (Vimentin), E-CAD (E-Cadherin); AR (Androgen receptor); EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor); OS (Overall survival), RFS (Relapse free survival), DFS (disease free survival)