Open Access

Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy decision and disease outcome in patients with breast cancer with a 21‑gene recurrence score of 26‑30

  • Authors:
    • Jing Yu
    • Jiayi Wu
    • Ou Huang
    • Jianrong He
    • Li Zhu
    • Weiguo  Chen
    • Yafen Li
    • Xiaosong Chen
    • Kunwei Shen
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: June 16, 2020     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11734
  • Pages: 1545-1556
  • Copyright: © Yu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Recurrence score (RS) could be used to predict clinical outcomes and chemotherapy efficacy in patients with hormone receptor (HR)‑positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‑negative and lymph node‑negative breast cancer. However, the clinical features and management of patients with an RS of 26‑30 are not completely understood. In the present study, 783 patients with HR+/HER2‑, lymph node‑negative early breast cancer and RS ≥18 were included and categorized into RS=18‑25 (47.8%), 26‑30 (25.5%) or ≥31 (26.7%) groups. Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy usage and disease outcomes were compared. Alterations in the adjuvant chemotherapy recommendation after 21‑gene RS testing were also analyzed. The results indicated that patients with RS=26‑30 had higher progesterone receptor (PR) expression [odds ratio (OR)=2.84; P<0.001] and lower Ki‑67 index (OR, 1.88; P=0.032) compared with patients with RS ≥31. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age ≤50 years (OR, 5.75; P=0.001) and luminal‑B subtype (OR, 7.75; P<0.001) were factors that were independently associated with chemotherapy usage in the RS=26‑30 group. Among 104 patients who were not recommended chemotherapy before 21‑gene RS testing, the treatment decision for 52 patients was changed to recommend chemotherapy once an RS of 26‑30 was identified. The patient adherence rate to the treatment recommendation was 95.0% (190/200). After a median follow‑up of 21.5 months, 6 patients displayed disease recurrence in the RS=26‑30 group, and there was no significant difference between patients receiving chemotherapy and patients not receiving chemotherapy. In conclusion, patients with RS=26‑30 had tumors with higher PR expression and lower Ki‑67 index compared with those of patients with RS ≥31. Age, luminal subtype and RS testing influenced chemotherapy usage in patients with RS=26‑30; however, no significant benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy was observed in a short term of 2 years.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

August-2020
Volume 20 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Yu J, Wu J, Huang O, He J, Zhu L, Chen W, Li Y, Chen X and Shen K: Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy decision and disease outcome in patients with breast cancer with a 21‑gene recurrence score of 26‑30. Oncol Lett 20: 1545-1556, 2020
APA
Yu, J., Wu, J., Huang, O., He, J., Zhu, L., Chen, W. ... Shen, K. (2020). Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy decision and disease outcome in patients with breast cancer with a 21‑gene recurrence score of 26‑30. Oncology Letters, 20, 1545-1556. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11734
MLA
Yu, J., Wu, J., Huang, O., He, J., Zhu, L., Chen, W., Li, Y., Chen, X., Shen, K."Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy decision and disease outcome in patients with breast cancer with a 21‑gene recurrence score of 26‑30". Oncology Letters 20.2 (2020): 1545-1556.
Chicago
Yu, J., Wu, J., Huang, O., He, J., Zhu, L., Chen, W., Li, Y., Chen, X., Shen, K."Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy decision and disease outcome in patients with breast cancer with a 21‑gene recurrence score of 26‑30". Oncology Letters 20, no. 2 (2020): 1545-1556. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11734