Analysis of clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of breast cancer patients with different molecular subtypes
10.3760/cma.j.cn115355-20220715-00449
- VernacularTitle:不同分子分型乳腺癌患者临床病理特征及预后因素分析
- Author:
Weigang WANG
1
;
Baoguo TIAN
;
Xiaoqin XU
;
Yan WANG
;
Lili DU
;
Xiaofang ZHANG
;
Ting SUN
;
Yanchun SHI
;
Jiexian JING
Author Information
1. 山西省肿瘤医院 中国医学科学院肿瘤医院山西医院 山西医科大学附属肿瘤医院医学检验部，太原 030013
- Keywords:
Breast neoplasms;
Immunophenotyping;
Disease attributes;
Prognosis
- From:
Cancer Research and Clinic
2023;35(11):833-839
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the differences in clinicopathological features, survival status and prognostic influencing factors of breast cancer patients with different molecular subtypes, and to provide bases for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer.Methods:The clinicopathological data of new-onset female breast cancer patients hospitalized in Shanxi Province Cancer Hospital from January 2015 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed, and patients were followed up. The clinicopathological features of patients with different molecular subtypes were compared. The follow-up was performed until June 30, 2021. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the survival of patients, and Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the factors affecting overall survival (OS) of patients with different molecular subtypes.Results:There were 272 (14.9%), 1 005 (55.2%), 277 (15.2%) and 268 (14.7%) patients with subtypes of Luminal A, Luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), respectively. The differences in the distribution of patients with age at diagnosis, age at menarche, menopausal status, age at menopause, pathological type, longest tumor diameter, T staging, N staging, histological grading, and TNM staging were statistically significant among the four groups (all P < 0.05). At a median follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year OS rates of Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 overexpression and TNBC subtypes were 93.8%, 89.2%, 77.6% and 78.0%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2 = 58.76, P < 0.001). M staging was an independent influencing factor for OS in patients with Luminal A breast cancer ( HR = 16.789, 95% CI 4.972-56.690, P < 0.001); T staging ( HR = 2.721, 95% CI 1.715-4.319), N staging ( HR = 4.460, 95% CI 2.399-8.291) and M staging ( HR = 3.364, 95% CI 1.988-6.670) were independent influencing factors for OS in patients with Luminal B breast cancer (all P < 0.001); N staging ( HR = 4.428, 95% CI 1.836-10.677) and M staging ( HR = 13.489, 95% CI 6.043-30.107) were independent influencing factors for OS of patients with HER2 overexpression breast cancer (both P < 0.01); T staging ( HR = 3.052, 95% CI 1.575-5.915), N staging ( HR = 2.492, 95% CI 1.298-4.785) and M staging ( HR = 33.012, 95% CI 8.606-126.637) were independent influencing factors for OS of patients with TNBC (all P < 0.01). Conclusions:The clinicopathological features and prognostic influencing factors of breast cancer patients with different molecular subtypes are different, and the prognosis of HER2 overexpression and TNBC patients is poor. Clinicians should provide individualized treatment and follow-up programs for patients with different molecular subtypes of breast cancer.
