Loading
Life sciences · Review
Frontiers in Oncology · October 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Review.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency well-characterized in hematologic malignancies but considered rare in solid tumors. In breast cancer, TLS has been documented only in sporadic case reports, and the evolving treatment landscape—including CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors, novel endocrine agents, and antibody-drug conjugates—may introduce previously unrecognized TLS risks. The only prior review on this topic was published in 2021 and has been superseded by numerous new cases. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 2000 to June 2026 for case reports and case series describing TLS in patients with breast cancer, following PRISMA guidelines. TLS diagnosis was verified against Cairo-Bishop criteria. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, precipitating factors, laboratory abnormalities, management, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results Twenty cases of TLS from 20 publications were identified, with one additional case of successful TLS prevention. All patients had stage IIB–IV disease, with the majority (90%, 18/20) having stage IV disease; liver metastases were present in 55% (11/20). Precipitating factors included endocrine therapy (n=4, 75% mortality), HER2-targeted therapy (n=4, 50% mortality), chemotherapy (n=6, 50% mortality), radiotherapy (n=2, 50% mortality), PI3K inhibitor (n=1, survived), immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination (n=1, survived), and spontaneous TLS (n=2, 50% mortality). Overall TLS-related mortality was 50% (10/20). Endocrine therapy-associated TLS—predominantly aromatase inhibitors—carried the highest mortality (75%, 3/4). The only surviving patient in this group achieved long-term remission following supportive management. Conclusions TLS in breast cancer, though rare, carries a high mortality rate approaching 50%. Notably, endocrine therapy—particularly aromatase inhibitors—emerges as a previously underappreciated TLS trigger with disproportionately poor outcomes. With the expanding use of novel targeted and endocrine agents in advanced breast cancer, clinicians should maintain heightened vigilance for TLS, especially in patients with high tumor burden and hepatic metastases. Early recognition and prompt intervention are essential to improve outcomes. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261429658.