Table 2. MFS univariate Cox regression analysis in the whole cohort.
| N | HR [95CI] | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | >50 vs ≤50 | 725 | 0.85 [0.65-1.12] | 0.25 |
| Pathological type | LOB vs DUC | 440 | 1.32 [0.75-2.32] | 0.46 |
| MED vs DUC | 0.39 [0.10-1.59] | |||
| MIX vs DUC | 0.65 [0.24-1.79] | |||
| Other vs DUC | 1.14 [0.50-2.61] | |||
| pN | Positive vs Negative | 612 | 1.37 [1.01-1.86] | 4.00E-02 |
| pT | pT2-4 vs pT1 | 445 | 1.77 [1.23-2.56] | 2.23E-03 |
| SBR grade | 2-3 vs 1 | 857 | 3.46 [2.08-5.76] | 1.70E-06 |
| ER status | Positive vs Negative | 1080 | 0.57 [0.47-0.68] | 4.70E-09 |
| PR status | Positive vs Negative | 1080 | 0.61 [0.5-0.73] | 3.30E-07 |
| ERBB2 status | Positive vs Negative | 1080 | 1.21 [0.93-1.57] | 0.17 |
| PDL1 expression | “up” vs “no up” | 1080 | 0.94 [0.75-1.17] | 0.57 |
N, number of samples with data available; LOB, invasive lobular carcinoma; DUC, invasive ductal carcinoma; MED, medullary carcinoma; MIX, mixt carcinoma (lobular and ductal); pT, pathological tumor size; pN, pathological lymph node involvement; HR, hazard ratio;95CI,95% confidence interval.