Table 1.

Cox regression analysis of the relationship between prognostic markers and DFS

Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
Lymph node involvement, cN1/cN2 vs. cN00.66 (0.23–1.91)0.45
Tumor size, ≥50 mm vs. <50 mm2.05 (0.56–7.47)0.27
Lymphovascular invasion, presence vs. absence2.95 (1.00–8.81)0.05nsns
Hormone receptor status, positive vs. negative0.40 (0.11–1.42)0.16
SBR grade, 3 vs. 1–2a4.33 (1.20–15.58)0.025.68 (1.55–20.85)0.009
pCR response, TA/NA or TA/NB vs. no response0.32 (0.11–0.90)0.03nsns
Baseline CTCs, ≥1/7.5 mL vs. <1/7.5 mL3.69 (1.34–10.21)0.014.75 (1.56–14.50)0.006

NOTE: For each single factor, the analysis was performed on the subpopulation of patients for whom the factor was available. For pCR, the analysis was performed on the patients who were still disease free immediately prior to surgery (n = 51). Factors identified as significantly associated with DFS in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.

Abbreviations: ns, not significant; SBR, Scarff–Bloom–Richardson grading system.

  • aOnly one tumor (2%) was diagnosed as of SBR grade 1.