Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 10;112(6):992–997. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.34

Table 2. Comparison of the baseline characteristics in the three study cohorts.

  Training set IGR n=2059 Validation set 1 CRH n=4461 P* value Validation set 2 MDACC n=2550 P** value
Age, median (range) 60 (23–96) 58 (21–95) <0.001 50 (19–91) <0.001
Clinical tumour size in mm median (range) 16 (2–200) 15 (0–200) 0.91 35 (0–200) <0.001
Clinical node status (%)         <0.001
 Negative 1693 (82.2) 3750 (84.1)   858 (33.6)  
 Positive 366 (17.8) 711 (15.9)   1692 (66.4)  
Oestrogen receptor status (%)     0.65   <0.001
 Negative 400 (19.4) 890 (20)   893 (35)  
 Positive 1659 (80.6) 3571 (80)   1657 (65)  
Progesterone receptor status (%)     0.96   <0.001
 Negative 741 (36) 1601 (35.9)   1303 (51.1)  
 Positive 1318 (64) 2860 (64.1)   1247 (48.9)  
Tumour grade (%)     <0.001   <0.001
 1–2 1417 (68.8) 3357 (75.2)   921 (36.1)  
 3 642 (31.2) 1104 (24.7)   1629 (63.9)  
HER2 (%)     <0.001   <0.001
 Positive 260/1807 (14.4) 492/4349 (11.3)   382/1909 (20)  
 Negative 1547/1807 (85.6) 3857/4349 (88.7)   1527/1909 (80)  
 Unknown 252 (12.2) 112 (2.5)   641 (25.1)  
 Synchronous metastases 91 (4.4) 144 (3.2) 0.02 129 (5.1) 0.35

Abbreviations: CRH= Institut Curie-René Huguenin; IGR= Institut Gustave Roussy; MDACC=MD Anderson Cancer Center.

P* value IGR vs CRH; P** value IGR vs MDACC.