Table 1.
Baseline characteristics | HNBC cohort | HPBC cohort | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full cohort | tATM low | tATM high | tATM low vs high | Full cohort | tATM low | tATM high | tATM low vs high | |
n = 168 (%) | n = 22 (%) | n = 79 (%) | P value | n = 130 (%) | n = 36 (%) | n = 66 (%) | P value | |
Age median (min-max) | 53 (30–82) | 58 (33–80) | 51(30–82) | 0.145 | 67 (38–88) | 71(41–86) | 68 (38–88) | 0.408 |
Tumor size | ||||||||
T1/T2 (≤5 cm) | 143 (85%) | 20 (20%) | 67 (66%) | 1.00 | 116 (89%) | 27 (26%) | 65 (64%) | 0.002 |
T3/T4 (>5 cm) | 16 (10%) | 2 (2%) | 10 (10%) | 10 (8%) | 7 (7%) | 1 (1%) | ||
Missing | 9 (5%) | 2 (2%) | 4 (3%) | 2 (2%) | ||||
Grade | ||||||||
1 | 3 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.295 | 25 (19%) | 6 (6%) | 12 (12%) | 0.029 |
2 | 29 (17%) | 5 (5%) | 9 (9%) | 63 (48%) | 10 (10%) | 38 (37%) | ||
3 | 121 (72%) | 17 (17%) | 68 (67%) | 32 (25%) | 15(14.5%) | 15(14.5%) | ||
Missing | 15 (9%) | 2 (2%) | 10 (8%) | 5 (5%) | 1 (1%) | |||
LVI | ||||||||
+ | 47 (28%) | 7 (7%) | 27 (27%) | 0.621 | 26 (20%) | 7 (7%) | 13 (13%) | 0.584 |
- | 97 (58%) | 15(15%) | 43 (42%) | 76 (58%) | 17 (16%) | 43 (42%) | ||
Missing | 24 (14%) | 9 (9%) | 28 (22%) | 12 (12%) | 10 (10%) | |||
LN | ||||||||
0 | 97 (58%) | 15(15%) | 41 (40%) | 0.230 | 67 (51%) | 14 (14%) | 38 (37%) | 0.03 |
>0 | 64 (38%) | 7 (7%) | 37 (37%) | 49 (38%) | 20 (19.5%) | 20 (19.5%) | ||
Missing | 7 (4%) | 1 (1%) | 14 (11%) | 2 (2%) | 8 (8%) | |||
Stage | ||||||||
I | 55 (33%) | 4 (4%) | 25 (25%) | 0.551 | 40 (31%) | 6 (6%) | 25 (24%) | 0.002 |
II | 81 (48%) | 13 (13%) | 35 (34%) | 43 (33%) | 13 (13%) | 22 (21.5%) | ||
III | 23 (14%) | 4 (4%) | 16 (16%) | 25 (19%) | 15 (14.5%) | 7 (7%) | ||
DCIS and IV | 9 (5%) | 1 (1%) | 3 (3%) | 3 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1%) | ||
Missing | NA | 19 (15%) | 2 (2%) | 11 (11%) | ||||
ER/PR status | ||||||||
Positive | 11 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 130 (100%) | 36 (35%) | 66 (65%) | ||
Negative | 48 (92%) | 22 (22%) | 79 (78%) | NA | ||||
Missing | 2 (1%) | NA | ||||||
HER2 status | NA | |||||||
Positive | 62 (36%) | 6 (6%) | 33 (33%) | 0.22 | ||||
Negative | 104 (62%) | 16 (16%) | 46 (45%) | |||||
Missing | 2 (1%) | |||||||
RT | ||||||||
Yes | 100 (60%) | 11 (11%) | 55 (54%) | 0.127 | 70 (54%) | 20 (20%) | 38 (37%) | 0.831 |
No | 68 (40%) | 11 (11%) | 24 (24%) | 56 (43%) | 15 (15%) | 25 (24%) | ||
Unknown | NA | 4 (3%) | 1 (1%) | 3 (3%) | ||||
Chemotherapy | ||||||||
Anthracycline-based | 105 (62%) | 11 (11%) | 59 (58%) | 0.04 | ||||
Anthracycline and taxane-based | 11 (7%) | 3 (3%) | 3 (3%) | |||||
CMF or 5FU | 7 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (4%) | |||||
Unknown | 3 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | ||||
None | 42 (25%) | 7 (7%) | 12 (12%) | 129 (99%) |
One hundred and sixty-eight HNBC and 130 HPBC patients diagnosed with EBC were included in the study. Clinical and histopathological features were summarized and described in numeric numbers and proportions in both cohorts. Sixty-seven cases in the HNBC cohort and 28 cases in the HPBC cohort were excluded for failing to obtain ATM staining due to technical issues. Therefore, a total of 101 cases in the HNBC cohort and 102 cases in the HPBC cohort were dichotomized into high and low ATM groups based on tATM AQUA scores. The cut-point was set at 22% in the HNBC cohort and 38% in the HPBC cohort respectively based on X-tile prediction. Student’s t test was used to compare the continuous variable age between low and high ATM groups. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the clinicopathological features of breast tumors in high and low ATM groups. HPBC, hormone-positive breast cancer; HNBC, hormone-negative breast cancer; tATM, tumor ATM; LVI, lymphvascular invasion; LN, lymph node status; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; RT, radiation treatment; CMT, combined modality treatment; 5FU, 5-fluorouracil; EBC, early-stage breast cancer; ATM, ataxia telangiectasia mutated; AQUA, automated quantitative immunofluorescence analysis.