The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its benefits in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and small tumors are unclear. This study aims to compare survival differences between clinical T1 TNBC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Data for patients with clinical T1 TNBC were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were categorized according to whether they received chemotherapy before or after surgery. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used to minimize the influence of confounding factors. OS and BCSS were compared between the two treatment sequences using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. The study included 6249 women with T1 TNBC. In multivariate analysis, compared with that in the AC group, the hazard ratio for death in the NAC group was 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.26-1.89, p < 0.001). NAC offers no additional benefits in any age group or T, N subgroups. Our findings suggest that NAC does not provide additional benefit to patients with clinical T1 TNBC, even in the presence of lymph node metastasis, or T1c.

BACKGROUND: Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) of the breast is known for its high propensity for lymph node (LN) invasion. Inadequate LN dissection may compromise the precision of prognostic assessments. This study introduces a log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) method to address this issue and develops a novel LODDS-based nomogram to provide accurate prognostic information.
METHODS: The study analyzed data from 1,901 patients with breast IMPC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. It assessed the relationships between LODDS and the number of excised LN (eLN), positive LN (pLN), and the pLN ratio (pLNR), identifying an optimal threshold value using a restricted cubic spline method. Predictive factors were identified by the Cox least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Cox-LASSO) regression and validated through multivariate Cox regression to construct a nomogram. The model\'s accuracy, discrimination, and utility were assessed. The study also explored the consequences of excluding LODDS from the nomogram and compared its effectiveness with the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system.
RESULTS: LODDS improved N status classification by identifying heterogeneity in patients with pLN ratios of 0% (pLN =0) or 100% (pLN =eLN) and setting -1.08 as the ideal cutoff. Five independent prognostic factors for breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were identified: tumor size, N status, LODDS, progesterone receptor status, and histological grade. The LODDS-based nomogram achieved a strong concordance index of 0.802 (95% CI: 0.741-0.863), surpassing both the version without LODDS and the conventional TNM staging in all tests.
CONCLUSIONS: For breast IMPC, LODDS served as an independent prognostic factor, its effectiveness unaffected by the anatomical LN count, enhancing the accuracy of N staging. The LODDS-based nomogram showed promise in offering more personalized prognostic information.

UNASSIGNED: The effective treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients remains a major challenge.
UNASSIGNED: To construct a nomogram affecting the overall survival of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and establish a survival risk prediction model.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 5317 TPBC patients with negative expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) who were diagnosed and received systematic treatment from 2010 to 2015 were collected from the American Cancer Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. They were randomly divided into training set (n= 3721) and validation set (n= 1596). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis were used to identify prognostic features, and a nomogram was established to predict the probability of 1-year, 3-year and 5-year OS and BCSS. We used consistency index (C-index), calibration curve, area under the curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) to evaluate the predictive performance and clinical utility of the nomogram.
UNASSIGNED: The C-indices of the nomograms for OS and BCSS in the training cohort were 0.797 and 0.825, respectively, whereas those in the validation cohort were 0.795 and 0.818, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves had higher sensitivity at all specificity values as compared with the Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) system. The calibration plot revealed a satisfactory relationship between survival rates and predicted outcomes in both the training and validation cohorts. DCA demonstrated that the nomogram had clinical utility when compared with the TNM staging system.
UNASSIGNED: This study provides information on population-based clinical characteristics and prognostic factors for patients with triple-negative breast cancer, and constructs a reliable and accurate prognostic nomogram.

Background The lifespan of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) has been prolonged. Nonetheless, there remains substantial debate regarding immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for this particular subgroup of patients. The aim of this study was to construct a nomogram predicting the breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) of dnMBC patients who underwent IBR. Methods A total of 682 patients initially diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) between 2010 and 2018 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included in this study. All patients were randomly allocated into training and validation groups at a ratio of 7:3. Univariate Cox hazard regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and best subset regression (BSR) were used for initial variable selection, followed by a backward stepwise multivariate Cox regression to identify prognostic factors and construct a nomogram. Following the validation of the nomogram with concordance indexes (C-index), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analyses (DCAs), risk stratifications were established. Results Age, marital status, T stage, N stage, breast subtype, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, liver metastasis, lung metastasis, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors for BCSS. The C-indexes were 0.707 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.666-0.748] in the training group and 0.702 (95% CI, 0.639-0.765) in the validation group. In the training group, the AUCs for BCSS were 0.857 (95% CI, 0.770-0.943), 0.747 (95% CI, 0.689-0.804), and 0.700 (95% CI, 0.643-0.757) at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, respectively, while in the validation group, the AUCs were 0.840 (95% CI, 0.733-0.947), 0.763 (95% CI, 0.677-0.849), and 0.709 (95% CI, 0.623-0.795) for the same time points. The calibration curves for BCSS probability prediction demonstrated excellent consistency. The DCA curves exhibited strong discrimination power and yielded substantial net benefits. Conclusions The nomogram, constructed based on prognostic risk factors, has the ability to provide personalized predictions for BCSS in dnMBC patients undergoing IBR and serve as a valuable reference for clinical decision making.

The role of age in metastatic disease, including breast cancer, remains obscure. This study was conducted to determine the role of age in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer.
Breast cancer patients diagnosed with distant metastases between 2010 and 2019 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Comparisons were performed between young (aged ≤ 40 years), middle-aged (41-60 years), older (61-80 years), and the oldest old (> 80 years) patients. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method.
This study included 24155 (4.4% of all patients) de novo metastatic breast cancer patients. The number of young, middle-aged, older, and the oldest old patients were 195 (8.3%), 9397 (38.9%), 10224 (42.3%), and 2539 (10.5%), respectively. The 5-year OS rate was highest in the young (42.1%), followed by middle-aged (34.8%), older (28.3%), and the oldest old patients (11.8%). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that middle-aged (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.27), older (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.32-1.52), and the oldest old patients (aHR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.98-2.33) had worse OS than young patients. Consistently, middle-aged (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.25), older (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23-1.43), and the oldest old patients (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.71-2.03) had worse BCSS than young patients.
This study provided clear evidence that de novo metastatic breast cancer had an age-specific pattern. Age was an independent risk factor for mortality in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In retrospective studies investigating the difference in survival by gender, there are conflicting results. It was aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in male and female breast cancer subtypes according to the prognostic staging system.
METHODS: Overall survival rates and BCSS rates of patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2010 and 2019 compared by gender for all cohorts, stages, and molecular subtypes using the SEER Database. The stage has been rearranged according to the eighth edition of the AJCC.
RESULTS: 364 039 patients were included in the study. .7% (n = 2503) of all breast cancers were male breast cancer. Overall survival (male: 5-year OS 73.9%, female = 5-year OS 86%) and BCSS rates (male: 5-year BCSS 78.9%, female = 5-year BCSS 94.7%) were significantly higher in females than in males for all cohorts. OS (male: 5-year OS 66.2% vs female: 5-year OS 88.3%), and BCSS (male: 5-year BCSS 88.4% vs female: 5-year 93.6%) rates were higher in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/Her2-negative female patients. Overall survival rate is higher in females in stage I (male: 5-year OS 81.5%, female: 5-year OS 92.8%), and BCSS rate is higher in stage I (male: 5-year BCSS 94.8%, female: 5-year BCSS 97.5%). Males have 2 times (HR = 2.023) higher overall mortality risk than females, but the risk of dying from breast cancer is only 1.6 times (HR = 1.596) higher.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer-specific mortality is significantly higher in male breast cancers, especially in the early stage, and HR-positive subtype than females.

UNASSIGNED: Age is a significant determinant of susceptibility to breast cancer. Currently, the available evidence regarding the non-linear correlation between the age of diagnosis and the prognosis of breast cancer patients is contradictory. Insufficient data currently exist regarding the influence of age at diagnosis on the prognosis of breast cancer. The objective of our investigation was to examine the relationship between age at diagnosis and overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and disease-free survival (DFS).
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective cohort study included 1054 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between March 7, 2013 and December 31, 2019. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for OS, BCSS, DFS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard ratio models and restricted cubic splines (RCS).
UNASSIGNED: The study included 1054 breast cancer patients who met the criteria. With a median follow-up of 4.86 years, 71 patients (6.74%) died and 144 patients (13.66%) relapsed. After multivariable adjustment, age showed a U-shaped association with OS, BCSS, and DFS, with significantly higher risk at two ends, with age inflection points of 44, 44, and 41 years for OS, BCSS, and DFS, respectively. For OS, Quartile 1 (HR, 2.09; 95% CI: 0.90-4.84), Quartile 3 (HR, 2.44; 95% CI: 1.05-5.65) and Quartile 4 (HR, 3.38; 95% CI: 1.51-7.54) had poorer OS compared with Quartile 2. Similar results were found for BCSS and DFS.
UNASSIGNED: This study confirmed a U-shaped association between age at diagnosis and breast cancer outcome.

The efficacy of breast reconstruction for patients with N2-3M0 stage female breast cancer (FBC) remained unclear due to the lack of randomized clinical trials. This retrospective study aimed to explore the efficacy of breast reconstruction for patients with N2-3M0 stage FBC.
Two thousand five hundred forty-five subjects with FBC staged by N2-3M0 from 2010 to 2016 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Generalized boosted model (GBM) and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses and multivariable Cox analyses were employed to assess the clinical prognostic effect of postmastectomy reconstruction for patients with N2-3M0 stage FBC in breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).
Totally, 1784 candidates underwent mastectomy alone (mastectomy group), and 761 candidates underwent postmastectomy reconstruction (PMbR group), with 418 breast-specific deaths after a median follow-up time of 57 months (ranging from 7 to 227 months). BCSS in the mastectomy group showed no statistical difference from that in the PMbR group in the PSM cohort (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.70-1.25, p = 0.400) and GBM cohort (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56-1.01, p = 0.057). In the multivariate analyses, there was no difference in the effect of PMbR and mastectomy on BCSS in the original cohort (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.66-1.09, p = 0.197), PSM cohort (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.64-1.15, p = 0.310), and GBM cohort (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.61-1.17, p = 0.298). Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) was a detrimental factor affecting BCSS for patients in the PMbR group.
Our study demonstrated that PMbR is an oncologically safe surgical treatment and can be widely recommended in clinics for females with non-TNBC staged by T0-3N2-3M0.

BACKGROUND: Based on the association between the hormone receptor and the status of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low, we investigated the clinicopathological and prognostic characteristics of the HER2-low status in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
METHODS: We collected the data of patients with TNBC who received treatment at our hospital and compared the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, overall survival (OS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) between the HER2-0 and HER2-low subtypes.
RESULTS: A total of 1445 patients were included in the study, of which 698 patients (48.3%) showed HER2-low status. A similar pCR rate was observed between HER2-0 and HER2-low patients (34.9% vs. 37.4%; P = .549). T staging, N staging, and HER2 status were associated with BCSS, whereas T staging and N staging were associated with OS. Patients with the HER2-low status showed better BCSS than those with the HER2-0 status (96.6% vs. 93.7%; log-rank P = .027). In patients with non-pCR, the BCSS of the HER2-low subgroup was better than that of the HER2-0 subgroup (log-rank P = .047); however, no similar result was observed in patients with pCR. In patients with stage III, the BCSS and OS of the HER2-low subgroup were better than those of the HER2-0 subgroup (BCSS, log-rank P = .010; OS, log-rank P = .047). No similar results were observed in patients with stages I and II.
CONCLUSIONS: The HER2-low expression was associated with better BCSS in TNBC, especially in the high-risk groups, suggesting that HER2-low breast cancer is a potential independent biological subtype.

Current treatment guidelines suggest considering adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk patients with T1a, node-negative triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC); however, limited quality data support this statement. Our population-based study assessed the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy and factors associated with its administration in node-negative, T1a TNBC.
We obtained data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for patients with T1aN0 TNBC diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. We utilized the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model to analyze the overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in chemotherapy benefit. We performed stratified models to identify differences in OS and BCSS between those who received chemotherapy and those who did not across subgroups. Competing risk analysis was conducted to assess differences in risk of breast cancer death in patients with chemotherapy administration versus no chemotherapy. Additionally, propensity score matching was executed to assess survival analysis in a matched cohort.
We included 1739 patients with T1a TNBC. Patients who received chemotherapy were younger, had higher histological grade and ductal histology subtype, were more likely to be married and undergo mastectomy. Our study did not show improvement in OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.35-1.13; P = .122) or BCSS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.37-2.43; P = .908) after chemotherapy use. We did not identify any subgroup of patients that may benefit from chemotherapy. Without chemotherapy, 8-year risk of breast cancer death is 2.75% for these patients.
Adjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with benefit on OS or BCSS in node-negative, T1a TNBC.