Utility of the CPS + EG score with real‑life data in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Yildiz Yurekli,Ezgi; Akay,Seval; Unal,Olcun Umit

doi:10.3892/ol.2025.15091

Utility of the CPS + EG score with real‑life data in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Authors:
- Ezgi Yildiz Yurekli
- Seval Akay
- Olcun Umit Unal
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Internal Medicine, Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, Konak, Izmir 35020, Turkey, Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir City Hospital, Bornova, Izmir 35540, Turkey
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.

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

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

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women, and predicting disease progression through CPS and EG scoring is important for treatment and prognosis, especially after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The present study aimed to evaluate the association between the clinical and pathological stage (CPS) + estrogen receptor status and histologic grade (EG) score and disease‑free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Data from 148 patients with breast cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the Medical Oncology Clinic of Izmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital between 2013‑2018 were analyzed. The following variables were assessed: Demographic characteristics, tumor size, clinical staging, estrogen receptor status, tumor nuclear grade in biopsy material and postoperative pathological staging. CPS + EG scores were calculated using simultaneous estrogen receptor status and tumor nuclear grade parameters, which were developed using the Neoadjuvant Therapy Outcomes Calculator Software of the MD Anderson Cancer Center. The 5‑year OS and DFS rates were evaluated, and the 5‑year follow‑up of the patients was analyzed. The median follow‑up period was 76.5 months, and the median survival time was 104.1 months. The pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 23.6%. Patients with a pCR were revealed to have a significantly higher DFS rate compared with the non‑pCR group (P=0.038). A significant decline in DFS was also demonstrated with increasing CPS + EG scores (P<0.001). Moreover, a CPS score of 3‑4 (P<0.001) and a CPS + EG score of 3‑4‑5 (P<0.001) were significantly associated with a worse OS. In conclusion, the relationship between the CPS + EG score and survival is apparent in the real‑world data in the present study. As the score increases, both the probability of recovery and OS decrease. Furthermore, the CPS + EG scoring system is an easy, free and accessible method to estimate prognosis.

View Figures

View References

1	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
2	The International Agency for Research on Cancer, . Breast Fact Sheet. 2020.
3	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
4	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
5	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
6	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
7	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
8	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
9	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
10	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
11	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
12	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
13	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
14	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
15	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
16	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
17	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
18	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
19	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
20	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
21	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
22	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
23	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
24	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
25	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
26	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
27	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
28	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
29	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
30	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
31	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
32	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
33	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
34	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