
Utility of the CPS + EG score with real‑life data in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy
- Authors:
- Published online on: May 15, 2025 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2025.15091
- Article Number: 345
-
Copyright: © Yildiz Yurekli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Breast cancer continues to be the most common cancer and a leading cause of mortality among women (1). A total of >2 million women are diagnosed with breast cancer globally per year (2) and predicting disease progression has become a central focus in cancer research (3). Furthermore, it is of great importance to determine the stage of breast cancer at the first presentation and enable the treatment plan and the prediction of cancer prognosis (4).
The diagnosis of invasive breast cancer requires the evaluation of estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, the tumor proliferation index (Ki-67), lymphatic and vascular invasion status and tumor oncogenesis of the biopsy specimen. Tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging provides a universal language for clinicians with a collective approach and interpretation regarding prognosis, and currently, the 8th edition of the American Joint Cancer Committee is used for breast cancer staging (5). PR status may be disregarded as a predictive factor if the ER status is noted to be positive (6). Another parameter considered in the histopathological examination is tumor grade, which evaluates tubule formation, nuclear polymorphism and mitotic activity together. Elston et al (7) reported that tumors with higher tumor grades were associated with worse clinical outcomes. This was further validated by Rakha et al (8). Taken together, a prognostic model was created with a scoring system based on these clinicopathological parameters. Using the Neoadjuvant Therapy Outcomes Calculator software, developed at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, the pretreatment clinical stage and post-treatment pathologic stage, as well as ER status and tumor nuclear grade, are incorporated to assess the prognosis and survival rates of patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) (9,10). This prediction model indicates that high score rates are associated with poor prognosis.
The present study aimed to assess the association between clinical and pathological stage (CPS) and ER status and histologic grade (EG) scoring with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with breast cancer who are treated with NACT in a Turkish population. Treatment outcomes were not included as this would require a large-scale randomized controlled study. The evaluation of the CPS + EG scoring system in this population group has not been studied yet in Turkey, to the best of our knowledge.
Materials and methods
The present retrospective study included data from 148 patients diagnosed with breast cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy followed by surgery in the Medical Oncology Clinic of Izmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital (Bornova, Turkey) between 2013 and 2018. The patients included had a histopathologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer, were at clinical stage II or III (5), and received neoadjuvant systemic therapy (chemotherapy and/or anti-HER2 therapy). Patients with distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis and patients with any secondary malignancies were excluded from the analysis. Ethics approval for the present study was obtained from the local ethics committee of Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital (approval no. 2023/08).
The following variables were analyzed: Demographic characteristics, tumor size at presentation, clinical staging with lymph node involvement and distant metastasis status (clinical TNM stage), ER status and tumor nuclear grade (NG) in biopsy material, and postoperative pathological staging after NACT [namely, pathological TNM stage after treatment (ypTNM)]. Postoperative tumor pathological response grading was categorized as progression, stable response, partial response and complete response (CR) to treatment. A pathological (p)CR was defined as the presence of residual ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast (ypTisN0) or the absence of an invasive tumor in both the breast and axillary lymph nodes (ypT0N0). CPS scores were calculated using the clinical stage at presentation and pathological stage after NACT. CPS + EG scores were calculated using the simultaneous ER status and NG, as implemented in the Neoadjuvant Therapy Outcomes Calculator Software of the MD Anderson Cancer Center (5,6). As the CPS-score 4 group included only 1 patient, this was excluded from the analysis. The scoring criteria for each parameter are presented in Table I. The 5-year OS and DFS expectations were recorded as percentages and the 5-year follow-up of the patients was analyzed.
![]() | Table I.Points given to each variable in the clinical and pathological stage + estrogen receptor status and histologic grade scoring system. |
The distribution of continuous variables was assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and skewness and kurtosis. Categorical variables are presented as n (%), whilst continuous variables are reported as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). OS was defined as the time from disease diagnosis to death, and DFS was defined as the time from diagnosis to relapse. Statistical calculations were performed accordingly. OS and DFS were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to determine differences in survival. Median follow-up time was calculated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional regression models were used to identify predictive variables for survival. SPSS v29.0 (IBM Corp.) and JAMOVI v2.6.2 (www.jamovi.org) were used for statistical analyses. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. However, in univariate analyses, P<0.10 was considered for inclusion of a variable in the multivariate model for further analysis. The analysis was computed using the backward elimination likelihood ratio method.
Results
Patient characteristics and follow-up
A total of 148 female patients were included in the present study, with a mean age of 49.3±10.0 years. The clinicopathological characteristics of patients are presented in Table II. The median follow-up period was 76.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 67.7–85.4]. The median OS was 104.1 months (95% CI, 97.4–110.9). The median DFS was 96.0 months (95% CI, 88.5–104.5). The overall pCR rate was 23.6%.
Survival and treatment response based on CPS and CPS+EG scores
Treatment responses based on CPS and CPS + EG scoring are presented in Tables III and IV, respectively. OS and DFS analyses were performed by stratifying patients into five (0–1–2–3–4) groups based on CPS scores. A significant decrease in OS was observed as CPS and DFS scores increased (both P<0.001; Figs. 1 and 2; Table V). 5-year OS and PFS rates of 46, 80, 95 and 100%, and 40, 69.5, 95 and 100%, respectively, were calculated for CPS scores of 3, 2, 1 and 0, respectively. Similarly, OS and DFS analyses stratified by CPS + EG scores (0–1–2–3–4–5–6) demonstrated a significant decrease in OS and DFS as scores increased (both P<0.001; Figs. 3 and 4; Table V) Patients with a pCR demonstrated significantly higher DFS rates compared with that of non-pCR (P=0.038). Moreover, a CPS score of 3–4 (in comparison with 0-1-2) and a CPS + EG score 3-4-5 (in comparison with 0-1-2) were significantly associated with a worse OS (both P<0.001; Figs. 1 and 3, Table V).
![]() | Table IV.Distribution of clinical and pathological stage + estrogen receptor status and histologic grade scores according to responses. |
![]() | Table V.Univariate analyses of several clinical parameters of patients in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival. |
Recurrence
Patients with recurrence had a shorter median OS (median, 64.3 months; 95% CI, 52.8–75.8) than patients without recurrence (median, 118.4 months; 95% CI, 113.5–123.3) (P<0.001). When patients were stratified according to their pCR status, median DFS and median OS was significantly lower in patients with recurrence (P=0.013 and P=0.038, respectively; Figs. 5 and 6, Table V).
HER2 status
OS was also significantly higher in HER2-positive patients compared with HER2-negative patients (P=0.015; Fig. 7). Furthermore, DFS was significantly higher in HER2-positive patients compared with HER2-negative patients (P=0.021; Fig. 8). Moreover, the 5-year OS rates for HER2-positive and -negative patients was 86 and 74%, respectively, whereas the 5-year PFS was 84 and 66%, respectively.
Univariate and Cox regression analysis
Univariate analyses of the variables are presented in Table V. Cox regression analysis revealed that HER2-negative status and higher CPS scores (3–4) were significantly associated with worse OS and DFS rates. HER2-negative patients had a higher risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 2.447; P=0.038] and recurrence (HR, 2.203; P=0.033) compared with HER2-positive patients. Similarly, patients with higher CPS scores had a significantly increased risk of poor OS (HR, 5.111; P=0.007) and DFS (HR, 3.876; P=0.025). Furthermore, a higher CPS + EG score (3–4–5) was predictive of a worse DFS (HR, 3.592; P=0.028), but its association with OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 4.121; P=0.058). Age and tumor diameter also did not demonstrate a significant impact on survival outcomes. These findings suggest that CPS and CPS + EG scores are valuable prognostic indicators, particularly for disease recurrence. Notably, the greatest increase in risk was observed in OS for higher CPS scores (HR, 5.111), indicating a more than five-fold increase in mortality risk, whilst HER2-negative status was associated with a two-fold increase in both mortality and recurrence (Table VI).
![]() | Table VI.Multivariate analyses of several clinical parameters of patients in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival. |
Discussion
Determination of the prognosis in patients with breast cancer is important for several reasons: It has an important role in establishing the treatment decision and frequency of follow-ups. Moreover, sharing the prognosis with patients and their relatives is an important reinforcement regarding quality of life. Relieving anxiety reduces depression and anxiety disorders along with increasing treatment compliance (11). Inclusion and stratification in clinical trials are also based on prognosis determination (12).
Prognostic acuity of the universally used TNM classification, established by the American Cancer Joint Committee has been defined. This system requires biopsy-based information, including ER, PR and HER2 status, and tumor grade and imaging for clinical staging (13). As an individualized approach is becoming more widespread in daily practice, prognostic models are needed to evaluate prognosis. According to the report published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, markers that carry descriptive, complementary and prognostic expressions of the disease should be able to express general terminology including analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility (14).
The utility and validity of the prognostic models are tested with validation studies (12). Prediction models should be validated using large cohorts from diverse ethnic groups to ensure that their impact on clinical decision-making does not interfere with the implementation of life-saving measures. Several prognostic models have been identified for predicting the outcomes of breast cancer; however, validation studies are insufficient. Their performances in independent populations are also suboptimal (15). Occasionally, internal validation works well but external validation may not (16). The Nottingham Prognostic Index is the oldest and easiest model in this field which was validated following different modifications (17–19).
Determining the validity of the CPS + EG scoring system will expand the use of this easily accessible and cost-effective system. It has been used in the stratification of other clinical trials for prognosis determination. Furthermore, it has been emphasized that this scoring system is valuable in the evaluation of local recurrence: The addition of postmastectomy radiotherapy to the treatment of a high-risk group with a CPS + EG score of >3 was reported to be associated with reduced recurrence rates (20). The findings of the study by Marmé et al (21) of the CPS + EG scores following NACT in HR-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer groups were also consistent with the findings of the present study. However, the study assessed 5-year DFS and OS following NACT in patients with triple negative breast cancer, and reported that the prognostic value of the scoring was ‘insufficient’.
To assess prognosis, key factors such as patient age, tumor size, degree of invasion, receptor status and histological grade are typically evaluated. In the case of locally advanced hormone-positive breast cancer, genomic profiling tools, including Oncotype DX risk scoring, EndoPredict, PAM50, the Breast Cancer Index and MammaPrint Genomic profiling assist in distinguishing between in high-risk and low-risk tumors (22). However, the high costs associated with these tests have led many authorities to impose restrictions on their use. Moreover, the lack of insurance coverage of these tests presents a notable challenge, particularly for economically disadvantaged patients (23). In this context, the incorporation of cost-free and non-invasive prognostic alternatives could offer additional advantages in clinical decision-making.
Mortality rates of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer are lower than those of patients with HER2-negative breast cancer in both hormone-positive and -negative subgroups (24), and anti-HER2 treatments serve a marked role in these outcomes. A previous study reported that the hazard ratios of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer gradually decreased in the hormone-positive subgroup compared with the hormone-negative subgroup, whereas the hormone-negative subgroup hazard ratios did not change over time (25).
NACT has become an integral part of breast cancer management, particularly in recent decades. In addition to shrinking the tumor and reducing the extent of surgery, NACT serves a crucial role in tumor downstaging and holds prognostic significance. Whilst radiological imaging remains an important tool for assessing treatment response, pathological evaluation continues to be the gold standard (26). Treatment response and tumor histological subtype are key factors in predicting the effectiveness of NACT, particularly as achieving a pCR notably improves PFS and OS (27,28). However, whilst pCR is a well-established prognostic marker in HR-negative tumors, a German study reported that achieving pCR was not a surrogate marker for prognosis in patients with Luminal A and Luminal B/HER2 positive breast cancer (29,30). This finding underscores the notion that tumor biology is a more significant determinant of prognosis than the response to NACT.
There is currently insufficient evidence to support treatment modifications based solely on the CPS + EG score, to the best of our knowledge. In patients with low-risk breast cancer, radiotherapy omission has been recommended in selected cases (31). However, its association with the CPS + EG score has not been clearly established. Although the role of treatment escalation in patients with high CPS + EG scores is a matter of debate, no standardized approach has been established (20,32). Therefore, whilst the CPS + EG score is a well-validated prognostic tool, its utility in guiding specific therapeutic decisions remains unclear.
The present study has certain limitations. First, age was not considered a distinguishing criterion. Given that breast cancer tends to exhibit a more aggressive course in younger (<35 years) and elderly (>65 years) patients, the predictive value of the CPS + EG scoring system may be less reliable in these age groups (33,34). Second, the present study did not incorporate genetic data, which may provide additional prognostic and predictive insights. Third, the relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. The small number of patients in subgroup analyses further reduced statistical power, making definitive conclusions more challenging. Additionally, heterogeneity in treatment regimens and clinical characteristics among patients may introduce variability in outcomes. Standardized treatment protocols in future prospective studies could help clarify the true impact of CPS + EG scoring in clinical decision-making. Finally, integrating CPS + EG scoring with emerging molecular and imaging biomarkers could further improve risk stratification and facilitate personalized treatment strategies in breast cancer. Future research should explore these aspects to optimize patient outcomes.
In conclusion, although the clinical stage at the first presentation of the disease may provide information on the prognosis of the patient, incorporating biological markers to the equation refines the outcomes in patients treated with NACT. Prognostic models that are incorporated with biological markers with several parameters facilitate an individualized approach. In the present study, the CPS + EG scoring system effectively predicted the prognosis of patients with non-metastatic breast cancer treated with NACT. Estimating prognosis at the initial presentation may help to identify the escalation and intensification of the chemotherapy treatment needed during the neoadjuvant therapy period.
The present study is the first to assess the CPS + EG scoring system in real-life data from patients with hormone positive breast cancer in Turkey, to the best of our knowledge. Furthermore, it provides a valuable opportunity to provide comparisons with other data sets on mortality and OS rates. The findings of the present study demonstrate a clear association between the CPS + EG score and survival. As the score increases, both the probability of recovery and the OS decrease. The CPS + EG scoring system is an easy-to calculate, cost-effective and accessible tool for clinical follow-up, survival estimation and patient stratification in NACT trials along with adjuvant chemotherapy choices.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.
Authors' contributions
EYY collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. SA planned the study and wrote the paper. OUU developed the study concept and reviewed the paper. EYY, SA and OUU confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethics approval for the present study was obtained from the local ethics committee of Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital (approval no: 2023/08). As the present study was retrospective, informed patient consent was not required.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 73:17–48. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, . Breast Fact Sheet. 2020. | |
Urut DU, Karabulut D, Hereklioglu S, Özdemir G, Cicin BA, Hacıoglu B, Süt N and Tunçbilek N: Diffusion tensor imaging: Survival analysis prediction in breast cancer patients. Radiologie (Heidelb). 64 (Suppl 1):S54–S59. 2024. View Article : Google Scholar | |
van der Meer DJ, Kramer I, van Maaren MC, van Diest PJ, C Linn S, Maduro JH, J A Strobbe L, Siesling S, Schmidt MK and Voogd AC: Comprehensive trends in incidence, treatment, survival and mortality of first primary invasive breast cancer stratified by age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017. Int J Cancer. 148:2289–2303. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Giuliano AE, Edge SB and Hortobagyi GN: Eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: Breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 25:1783–1785. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Simon RM, Paik S and Hayes DF: Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 101:1446–1452. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Elston CW and Ellis IO: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: Experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 19:403–410. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, Elston CW, Grainge MJ, Hodi Z, Blamey RW and Ellis IO: Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 26:3153–3158. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Jeruss JS, Mittendorf EA, Tucker SL, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, Cormier JN, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN and Hunt KK: Staging of breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. Cancer Res. 68:6477–6481. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Mittendorf EA, Jeruss JS, Tucker SL, Kolli A, Newman LA, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, Cormier JN, Buzdar AU, et al: Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 29:1956–1962. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Pollak KI, Arnold RM, Jeffreys AS, Alexander SC, Olsen MK, Abernethy AP, Sugg Skinner C, Rodriguez KL and Tulsky JA: Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 25:5748–5752. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Altman DG and Royston P: What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med. 19:453–473. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Hortobagyi GN, Edge SB and Giuliano A: New and important changes in the TNM staging system for breast cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 38:457–467. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Febbo PG, Ladanyi M, Aldape KD, De Marzo AM, Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Iafrate AJ, Kelley RK, Marcucci G, Ogino S, et al: NCCN Task Force report: Evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 9 (Suppl 5):S1–S32. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar | |
Phung MT, Tin Tin S and Elwood JM: Prognostic models for breast cancer: A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 19:2302019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Clift AK, Dodwell D, Lord S, Petrou S, Brady M, Collins GS and Hippisley-Cox J: Development and internal-external validation of statistical and machine learning models for breast cancer prognostication: Cohort study. BMJ. 381:e0738002023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Rakha EA, Soria D, Green AR, Lemetre C, Powe DG, Nolan CC, Garibaldi JM, Ball G and Ellis IO: Nottingham prognostic index plus (NPI+): A modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 110:1688–1697. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Gray E, Donten A, Payne K and Hall PS: Survival estimates stratified by the Nottingham Prognostic Index for early breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Syst Rev. 7:1422018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Hawkins RA, Tesdale AL, Prescott RJ, Forster T, McIntyre MA, Baker P, Jack WJ, Chetty U, Dixon JM, Killen ME, et al: Outcome after extended follow-up in a prospective study of operable breast cancer: Key factors and a prognostic index. Br J Cancer. 87:8–14. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Vila J, Teshome M, Tucker SL, Woodward WA, Chavez-MacGregor M, Hunt KK and Mittendorf EA: Combining clinical and pathologic staging variables has prognostic value in predicting Local-regional recurrence following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg. 265:574–580. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Marmé F, Solbach C, Michel L, Schneeweiss A, Blohmer JU, Huober J, Fasching PA, Jackisch C, Nekljudova V, Link T, et al: Utility of the CPS+ EG scoring system in triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 153:203–212. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Song R, Lee DE, Lee EG, Lee S, Kang HS, Han JH, Lee KS, Sim SH, Chae H, Kwon Y, et al: Clinicopathological factors associated with oncotype DX risk group in patients with ER+/HER2-Breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 15:44512023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Yabroff KR, Sylvia Shi K, Zhao J, Freedman AN, Zheng Z, Nogueira L and de Moor JS: Importance of patient health ınsurance coverage and Out-of-Pocket costs for genomic testing in oncologists' Treatment decisions. JCO Oncol Pract. 20:429–437. 2024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Taylor C, McGale P, Probert J, Broggio J, Charman J, Darby SC, Kerr AJ, Whelan T, Cutter DJ, Mannu G and Dodwell D: Breast cancer mortality in 500 000 women with early invasive breast cancer diagnosed in England, 1993–2015: Population based observational cohort study. BMJ. 381:e0746842023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J, Cheang MC, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO, Blomqvist C, et al: Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: A collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med. 7:e10002792010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Kulturoglu MO, Aydın F, Aslan F, Sagdic MF, Coskun O and Dogan L: The rush to evaluate response at the end of treatment in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant treatment: Which tests are effective in the selection of surgical technique? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 26:619–624. 2025. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, Bonnefoi H, Cameron D, Gianni L, Valagussa P, et al: Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 384:164–172. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Tayebi A, TizMaghz A, Gorjizad M, Tavasol A, Tajaddini A, Rashnoo F, Vakili K, Behmanesh M, Olamaeian F and Ashoori M: Evaluating the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on surgical outcomes in breast cancer patients: A systematic review study. J Chemother. February 28;(Epub ahead of print). PubMed/NCBI | |
Roussot N, Constantin G, Desmoulins I, Bergeron A, Arnould L, Beltjens F, Mayeur D, Kaderbhai C, Hennequin A, Jankowski C, et al: Prognostic stratification ability of the CPS+EG scoring system in HER2-low and HER2-zero early breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 202:1140372024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, Gerber B, Eiermann W, Hilfrich J, Huober J, et al: Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 30:1796–804. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Rhodes S, Miller DG and Chino F: ‘When Less is More’: Paradigm shifts in radiation treatment for Early-stage breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 25:1495–1505. 2024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Michel LL, Sommer L, González Silos R, Lorenzo Bermejo J, von Au A, Seitz J, Hennigs A, Smetanay K, Golatta M, Heil J, et al: Locoregional risk assessment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary breast cancer: Clinical utility of the CPS + EG score. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 177:437–446. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Fredholm H, Eaker S, Frisell J, Holmberg L, Fredriksson I and Lindman H: Breast cancer in young women: Poor survival despite intensive treatment. PLoS One. 4:e76952009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Bastiaannet E, Liefers GJ, de Craen AJ, Kuppen PJ, van de Water W, Portielje JE, van der Geest LG, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Dekkers OM, van de Velde CJ and Westendorp RG: Breast cancer in elderly compared to younger patients in the Netherlands: Stage at diagnosis, treatment and survival in 127,805 unselected patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 124:801–807. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI |