Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

e-Posters

29P - Biological factors of breast cancer and DFS

Date

06 Oct 2021

Session

e-Posters

Presenters

Donia Abd El Hamed

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2021) 32 (suppl_6): S1345-S1371. 10.1016/annonc/annonc740

Authors

D. Abd El Hamed1, R. Mohamed2, M.A. Mohamed2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Assiut University Hospitals, Assiut/EG
  • 2 Assiut University Hospitals, 71516 - Assiut/EG
More

Abstract 29P

Background

Novel molecular characterization of breast cancer with cellular markers has allowed a new classification that offers prognostic value, with predictive categories of disease aggressiveness. Biological factors have predictive and prognostic value in breast cancer patients. Our work evaluates the prognostic value of the bioscore among non-metastatic female breast cancer patients concerning disease-free survival (DFS).

Methods

We reviewed the clinical data of 317 female patients with non-metastatic surgically treated breast cancer from January 2015 to December 2018 presented at the Clinical Oncology Department of Assiut University Hospital. The biological variables include: pathologic stage (PS), T stage (T), nodal stage (N), grade (G), estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) status. Univariate & two multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables associated with disease-free survival (DFS). Multiple staging system models were built for significant factors in both univariate and multivariate analyses: PS, PS + G, PS + G + E, T + N, T + N + G, T + N + G + E. The first one used the PS, which takes into account the combined T and N stage as a variable, while the second included T and N stages as separate variables. Model performance was quantified using Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to compare model fits.

Results

The only significant factors in the univariate analysis were PS3, T2, T3, T4, N3, G2, G3, ER -ve, PR -ve, and HER2 –ve with Hazard Ratio (HR): 4.77, 2.52, 2.80, 5.59, 2.74, 6.92, 16.80, 3.08, 2.11, 0.53 respectively with significant P value (˂ 0.05). The factors which were significant in the first multivariate model were: PS3, G3, ER –ve, and in the second one were: T2, T4, N3, G3, and ER –ve. Two sets of models were built to determine the utility of combining variables. Models incorporating G and E status had the highest C-index (0.72) for (T+N + G + ER) in comparison with (0.69) for (PS+ G + ER) and the lowest AIC (953.01) for (T + N + G + E) and (966.9) for (PS + G + E).

Conclusions

Bioscore provides more optimistic prognostic stratification than the anatomic staging alone as regards DFS. It helps clinicians to provide patients with more personalized treatment options.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Faculty of Medicine Assiut University.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings