Table 4.
Correlation of pathologic factors with color pattern on univariate analysis
| Variable | Color pattern | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Negative | Positive | |||
| Pathologic size | 3 (100.0) | 79 (100.0) | 1.262 (0.981, 1.624) | 0.070 |
| Pathologic size | ||||
| <10 mm | 2 (66.7) | 15 (19.0) | 0 | |
| 10–20 mm | 1 (33.3) | 30 (38.0) | 3.280 (0.379, 28.423) | 0.281 |
| >20 mm | 0 (0.0) | 34 (43.0) | 11.131 (0.478, 259.383) | 0.134 |
| Histologic grade | ||||
| 1 | 0 (0.0) | 17 (22.1) | 0 | |
| 2 | 3 (100.0) | 38 (49.3) | 0.314 (0.014, 6.958) | 0.464 |
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 22 (28.6) | 1.286 (0.022, 75.402) | 0.904 |
| Lymph node status | ||||
| Negative | 3 (100.0) | 63 (79.8) | 0 | |
| Positive | 0 (0.0) | 16 (20.2) | 1.819 (0.082, 40.209) | 0.705 |
| LVI | ||||
| Negative | 3 (100.0) | 72 (91.1) | 0 | |
| Positive | 0 (0.0) | 7 (8.9) | 0.724 (0.028, 18.595) | 0.846 |
| Pathologic type | ||||
| IDC | 0 (0.0) | 59 (71.9) | 7.667 (0.120, 488.030) | 0.337 |
| ILC | 0 (0.0) | 5 (6.3) | 0.733 (0.009, 60.153) | 0.890 |
| DCIS | 3 (100.0) | 10 (12.7) | 0.200 (0.007, 5.465) | 0.340 |
| Etc | 0 (0.0) | 5 (6.1) | 0 | |
| ER | ||||
| Negative | 1 (33.3) | 21 (26.6) | 0 | |
| Positive | 2 (66.7) | 58 (73.4) | 1.633 (0.196, 13.597) | 0.650 |
| PR | ||||
| Negative | 1 (33.3) | 24 (30.4) | 0 | |
| Positive | 2 (66.7) | 55 (69.6) | 1.359 (0.164, 11.233) | 0.776 |
| HER2 | ||||
| Negative | 2 (66.7) | 59 (74.7) | 0 | |
| Positive | 1 (33.3) | 20 (25.3) | 0.574 (0.069, 4.798) | 0.609 |
| Ki67 | ||||
| <14% | 2 (100.0) | 36 (52.9) | 0 | |
| ≥14% | 0 (0.0) | 32 (47.1) | 4.452 (0.197, 100.748) | 0.348 |
CI, confidence interval; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; ER,estrogen receptor; HER2, humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasivelobular carcinoma; LVI, lymphovascularinvasion; OR, odd ratio; PR, progesterone receptor.
p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.