Scholarlink

Objective <p>This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes of hormone receptor (HR)-low positive (1%-10%) breast cancer, with a focus on evaluating the prognostic impact of endocrine therapy (ET) and its interplay with HR-low positive categories (ER-low/PR-low, ER-low/PR-negative, ER-negative/PR-low).</p> Methods <p>A retrospective analysis of 16,578 patients with stage I–III breast cancer (July 2009 to December 2019) identified 388 HR-low positive cases. Propensity score match (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics in two comparisons: (1) HR-low positive patients receiving ET vs. HR-negative patients; (2) HR-low positive patients with vs. without ET. 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were analyzed via Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses. Subgroup and interaction analyses assessed ET efficacy across HR-low positive categories.</p> Results <p>HR-low positive tumors (2.34%) exhibited clinicopathological similarities to HR-negative tumors but distinct from HR-positive tumors. ET administration significantly improved DFS of HR-low positive patients compared to HR-negative counterparts (84.89% vs. 75.87%; HR = 0.59 [0.37–0.93], <i>P</i> = 0.024). Within HR-low positive cohort, ET omission was significantly associated with a 74% increased risk of DFS compared to ET-treated patients (75.54% vs. 85.37%; HR = 1.74 [1.01–3.00], <i>P</i> = 0.047). ET duration (1–4 vs. 5&#xa0;years) did not affect survival outcomes (DFS: <i>P</i> = 0.533; BCSS: <i>P</i> = 0.675). Multivariate analysis confirmed ET omission as an independent risk factor for worse DFS (HR = 1.75 [1.01–3.05], <i>P</i> = 0.046). Subgroup analysis revealed equivalent ET benefit across all HR-low positive categories (<i>P</i> for interaction &gt; 0.9).</p> Conclusion <p>HR-low positive breast cancer has similar clinicopathological characteristics and therapeutic options with HR-negative disease but derives significant DFS benefits from ET, irrespective of ET duration or HR category. These findings support integrating ET into standard management protocol for HR-low positive breast cancer to ameliorate survival outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Treatment and prognosis of patients with hormone receptor-low positive (1%–10%) breast cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月9日

查看全文
  • Yulou Luo,
  • Yilina Saibaidula,
  • Yutian Sun,
  • Yinghui Ye,
  • Jianghua Ou

摘要

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes of hormone receptor (HR)-low positive (1%-10%) breast cancer, with a focus on evaluating the prognostic impact of endocrine therapy (ET) and its interplay with HR-low positive categories (ER-low/PR-low, ER-low/PR-negative, ER-negative/PR-low).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 16,578 patients with stage I–III breast cancer (July 2009 to December 2019) identified 388 HR-low positive cases. Propensity score match (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics in two comparisons: (1) HR-low positive patients receiving ET vs. HR-negative patients; (2) HR-low positive patients with vs. without ET. 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were analyzed via Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses. Subgroup and interaction analyses assessed ET efficacy across HR-low positive categories.

Results

HR-low positive tumors (2.34%) exhibited clinicopathological similarities to HR-negative tumors but distinct from HR-positive tumors. ET administration significantly improved DFS of HR-low positive patients compared to HR-negative counterparts (84.89% vs. 75.87%; HR = 0.59 [0.37–0.93], P = 0.024). Within HR-low positive cohort, ET omission was significantly associated with a 74% increased risk of DFS compared to ET-treated patients (75.54% vs. 85.37%; HR = 1.74 [1.01–3.00], P = 0.047). ET duration (1–4 vs. 5 years) did not affect survival outcomes (DFS: P = 0.533; BCSS: P = 0.675). Multivariate analysis confirmed ET omission as an independent risk factor for worse DFS (HR = 1.75 [1.01–3.05], P = 0.046). Subgroup analysis revealed equivalent ET benefit across all HR-low positive categories (P for interaction > 0.9).

Conclusion

HR-low positive breast cancer has similar clinicopathological characteristics and therapeutic options with HR-negative disease but derives significant DFS benefits from ET, irrespective of ET duration or HR category. These findings support integrating ET into standard management protocol for HR-low positive breast cancer to ameliorate survival outcomes.