Author % PIK3CA mutation invasive % PIK3CA mutation DCIS Concordance DCIS-invasive Concordance Intratumoral (multiple samples from primary) Concordance primary tumor-metastasis Lee 2005 [51] 31% (n=78) 13% (n=15) ND ND ND Maruyama 2007 [63] 30% (n=176) 0%   (n=12) ND ND ND Li 2010 [64] 27% (n=108) 24% (n=57) ND ND ND Dunlap 2010 [79] 15% (n=81) ND 100% (n=13) ND ND Miron 2010 (pilot cohort) [80] 11% (n=34) 19% (n=37) 93%   (n=29) ND ND Miron 2010 (Korean cohort) [80] 29% (n=374) 30% (n=97) 66%   (n=45) ND ND Da Silva 2010 [74] 17% (n=12) ND ND ND 100% (brain n=12) Dupont-Jensen 2011 [75] 45% (n=101) ND ND 60% (n=10) 74%   (nodes n=46)# 68%   (distant n=100)# Gonzalez-Angulo 2011 [76] 40% (n=47) ND ND ND 82%   (distant n=51)* Kalinsky 2011[77] 38% (n=63) ND 100%  (n=5) 95% (n=63) 91.7% (nodes n=12)^ 100%  (distant n=5) ND: not done #Nodes: 8 cases had mutation in primary but not in nodal metastasis (3 exon 9, 1 exon 20); 4 had mutation in nodal metastasis but not in primary (3 exon 9, 5 exon 20). #Distant: 11 cases had mutation in primary but not in metastasis; 21 cases had mutation in metastasis but not in primary (p=0.08) *5 cases had mutation in primary but not in metastasis; 4 cases had mutation in metastasis but not primary ^Nodes: one case had exon 20 mutationin primary, but not in nodal metastasis

Table 4: PIK3CA mutations in DCIS, paired invasive carcinoma, and paired metastatic tumors.