Establishment and verification of a nomogram for predicting survival in patients with triple-positive breast cancer
Original Article

Establishment and verification of a nomogram for predicting survival in patients with triple-positive breast cancer

Xingguang Wang1, Huxia Wang2, Fende Liu2, Lu Jie1, Zhangjun Song1

1Department of Surgical Oncology, Shaanxi Provincial People’s Hospital, Xi’an, China; 2Department of Breast Disease Center, Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital, Xi’an, China

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: X Wang; (II) Administrative support: Z Song; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: Z Song; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: X Wang; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: X Wang; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Correspondence to: Zhangjun Song. Department of Surgical Oncology, Shaanxi Provincial People’s Hospital, Xi’an, China. Email: DoctorSong051107@126.com.

Background: Triple-positive breast cancer (TPBC) is a specific type of breast cancer characterized by the positive expression of estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2). In recent years, the research on breast cancer has been increasing year by year, but there are few studies on TPBC, especially the lack of analysis with large sample size. In this study, sufficient samples were provided through the SEER database, explore the factors affecting the prognosis of TPBC, and construct a prediction model, in order to assess the individual survival of patients, and help clinicians accurately identify high-risk patients and develop personalized treatment plans.

Methods: Patients pathologically diagnosed with TPBC were recruited from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and randomly divided into training and validation groups (7:3 ratio). Univariate analysis was used to analyze the related factors affecting the prognosis of TPBC patients in the modeling group, and then multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the significant factors to screen out the independent risk factors affecting the 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate and construct the prediction model. Using the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve were performed to evaluate the predictive ability of the model.

Results: The results of the Cox risk-scale model showed that race, age, marital status, tumor grade, tumor, node, metastasis stage, surgical treatment, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy affected the prognosis of TPBC patients (P<0.05) in the training group, and the factors were used to construct a nomogram. The internal and external validation of the nomogram chart indicated that the C-index of the training group was 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.836, 0.863] and that of the verification group was 0.833 (95% CI: 0.807, 0.858). The calibration curves of the 2 groups showed that the OS predicted by the model was consistent with the actual survival of the patients.

Conclusions: The prediction model accurately predicted the prognosis of and identified high-risk TPBC patients.

Keywords: Triple-positive breast cancer (TPBC); Surveillance; Epidemiology and End Result database (SEER database); prognostic factors; prediction model

Submitted Jun 09, 2022. Accepted for publication Aug 05, 2022.

doi: 10.21037/atm-22-3560

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor affecting women worldwide, and its morbidity and mortality have been increasing annually; it poses a serious threat to women’s health (1). As a special luminal B subtype, triple-positive breast cancer (TPBC) is characterized by the positive expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2), and accounts for about 10% of all breast cancer cases (2). It is pathologically characterized by infiltrating ductal carcinoma with complex karyotype. The most common histological grading is grade II and grade III (3). Vascular invasion and lymph node metastases are common in patients with TPBC, and the most likely site of distant metastasis is bone (4). Previous study has shown that the prognosis of TPBC patients is closer to that of patients with luminal A type and lower than that of patients with HER-2-positive type breast cancer (5). HER-2-positive patients often present with a low hormone receptor (HR) status, and patients with higher HER-2 expression have a worse prognosis. Notably, HR expression is inversely related to the prognosis of patients. Age, menopausal status at diagnosis, histological type of cancer, grade of primary tumor, and stage of diagnosis are important factors affecting the prognosis of TPBC patients (6).

In general, the proportion of breast cancer patients with TPBC is not small, but we found that there are few studies and reports on TPBC, and the total sample size was small, making the results unreliable. Currently, nomograms have been developed for the majority of cancer types (7-9), there is no prognostic model for patients with TPBC, so it is of great significance to understand the prognostic factors affecting the survival of patients with TPBC and establish a model to predict the prognosis of patients with TPBC.

In this study, we used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result (SEER) database, established by the National Cancer Institute, which is also one of the most representative large tumor registries in North America, to gather valuable first-hand data (10). We extracted the data of TPBC patients from 2010 to 2016, analyzed the prognostic factors associated with TPBC, and established a prediction model to distinguish high-risk groups and guide clinicians in making treatment decisions. We present the following article in accordance with the TRIPOD reporting checklist (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-3560/rc).

Methods

Patient eligibility and clinical features

This study took TPBC patients in SEER database as the research object, and established a prediction model to predict the prognosis of TPBC patients. Patients diagnosed with TPBC between 2010 to 2016 were identified from the SEER*Stat (version 8.3.8) database. Patients were eligible for inclusion in the study if they met the following inclusion criteria: (I) were diagnosed in the period of 2010 to 2016; (II) had a pathological diagnosis of infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast (8,500/3); and (III) were ER-, PR-, and HER-2-positive. Patients were excluded from the study if they met any of the following exclusion criteria: (I) were male; (II) had a survival period of 0 months; (III) had a non-primary cancer; (IV) were aged <18.5 years; and/or (V) had incomplete follow-up data. Overall survival (OS) is defined as the time from diagnosis of breast cancer to death from any cause. Clinical death was the end point of follow-up until December 31, 2016. Since any information in the SEER database does not require explicit consent from the patients, our study was not subject to the ethical approval requirements of the institutional review board. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013).

Data on the following clinical characteristics were collected: race, age, marital status, operation, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, survival status, survival time, etc. The tumor characteristics included were tumor grade, T stage, N stage, and M stage. The TNM staging of the tumors was performed according to the Staging System of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC, version 7). In relation to race, “Other” stands for American Indian/Alaskan Native or Asian/Pacific Islander.

Statistical analysis

Cases with missing data were removed directly using Excel 2007. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 18 software and R language (4.0.3). The sample function in R language software (4.0.3) was used to conduct a simple random sampling of the data. The data were divided into the training group (70%) and the verification group (30%). The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze the factors affecting the survival prognosis of patients in the training group, and factors with a P value <0.05 in the single-factor analysis were included in the multi-factor analysis to determine the final independent prognostic factors. The “RMS” package in R language was used to build a nomogram prediction model, calculate the concordance index (C-index) value, and draw the calibration curve. The internal validation of performance was estimated using the bootstrapping method (with 1,000 replications) (11).

Results

Patients’ baseline characteristics

A total of 25,658 patients diagnosed with TPBC were enrolled in this study between 2010 and 2016, and for various reasons, 10,865 patients were excluded. Ultimately, 14,793 TPBC patients were deemed eligible for inclusion in the study. A filter flow chart of the study’s process is shown in Figure 1. We selected extracted clinical data based on clinical observation and previous literature, including: race, age, marital status, tumor grade, tumor, node, metastasis stage, surgical treatment, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The clinicopathological characteristics of the training and validation sets are shown in Table 1. The median survival time for TPBC patients was 38 months in both the training and verification groups. During the follow-up period, a total of 1,193 patients died, of whom 874 patients were in the training group and 318 were in the verification group.

Figure 1 Diagram of the process used to exclude patients. SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER-2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

Table 1

Basic demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with triple positive breast cancer

Characteristics Training cohort (n=10,397) Validation cohort (n=4,396)
Race, n (%)
   White 8,008 (77.0) 3,348 (76.2)
   Black 1,206 (11.6) 544 (12.4)
   Other 1,183 (11.4) 504 (11.5)
Age, n (%)
   18–39 1,175 (11.3) 506 (11.5)
   40–59 5,331 (51.3) 2,252 (51.2)
   60–79 3,351 (32.2) 1,436 (32.7)
   ≥80 540 (5.2) 202 (4.6)
Marital status, n (%)
   Yes 6,268 (60.3) 2,653 (60.4)
   No 4,129 (39.7) 1,743 (39.6)
Grade, n (%)
   I–II 4,943 (47.5) 2,145 (48.8)
   III–IV 5,454 (52.5) 2,251 (51.2)
T stage, n (%)
   T0–1 5,101 (49.1) 2,189 (49.8)
   T2 4,019 (38.7) 1,688 (38.4)
   T3 748 (7.2) 305 (6.9)
   T4 529 (5.1) 214 (4.9)
N stage, n (%)
   N0 6,139 (59.0) 2,514 (57.2)
   N1 3,112 (29.9) 1,379 (31.4)
   N2 721 (6.9) 313 (7.1)
   N3 425 (4.1) 190 (4.3)
M stage, n (%)
   M0 9,087 (87.4) 4,175 (95.0)
   M1 590 (5.7) 221 (5.0)
Surgery, n (%)
   Yes 9,531 (91.7) 4,073 (92.7)
   No/unknown 866 (8.33) 323 (7.3)
Radiation, n (%)
   Yes 5,133 (49.4) 2,190 (49.8)
   No/unknown 5,264 (50.6) 2,206 (50.2)
Chemotherapy, n (%)
   Yes 7,839 (75.4) 3,335 (75.9)
   No/unknown 2,558 (24.6) 1,061 (24.1)
Vital status, n (%)
   Alive 9,253 (89.0) 4,078 (92.7)
   Dead 874 (8.4) 318 (7.3)

Independent prognostic factors in the training set and the construction of the nomogram

A training set was used to establish the nomogram. Table 2 shows the results of the univariate and multivariate analyses for the potential predictors of OS. Race, age at diagnosis, marital status, breast cancer subtype, grade, T stage, N stage, M stage, radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery were found to be significant risk factors affecting OS in the univariate analysis. The multivariate analysis showed that the above factors were independent predictors of survival (Table 2). The independent factors were used to build a nomogram for predicting 3- and 5-year OS (Figure 2).

Table 2

Univariate and multivariate analyses of cancer-specific survival in the training cohort

Variables Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
HR (95% CI) P value HR (95% CI) P value
Race
   White Reference Reference
   Black 1.58 (1.32, 1.89) <0.01 1.39 (1.03, 1.86) 0.02
   Other 0.74 (0.58, 0.94) 0.017 0.58 (0.37, 0.91) 0.01
Age, years
   18–39 Reference Reference
   40–59 0.85 (0.65, 1.11) 1.25 (0.76, 2.07) 0.37
   60–79 1.82 (1.40, 2.37) <0.01 2.68 (1.63, 4.39) <0.01
   ≥80 9.25 (7.02, 12.17) <0.01 11.71 (6.97, 19.69) <0.01
Marital status
   Yes Reference Reference
   No 2.32 (2.03, 2.66) <0.01 2.50 (2.00, 3.13) <0.01
Grade
   I + II Reference Reference
   III + IV 1.24 (1.08, 1.42) <0.01 1.38 (1.108, 1.73) 0.04
T stage
   T0–1 Reference Reference
   T2 2.29 (1.94, 2.71) <0.01 2.47 (1.88, 3.25) <0.01
   T3 3.83 (3.05, 4.81) <0.01 2.38 (1.92, 3.19) <0.01
   T4 9.78 (8.00, 11.94) <0.01 10.98 (7.94, 15.1) <0.01
N stage
   N0 Reference Reference
   N1 1.83 (1.57, 2.14) <0.01 1.72 (1.33, 2.22) <0.01
   N2 2.75 (2.22, 3.40) <0.01 2.66 (1.87, 3.79) <0.01
   N3 4.84 (3.90, 6.00) <0.01 4.68 (3.29, 6.67) <0.01
M stage
   M0 Reference Reference
   M1 9.06 (7.80, 10.52) <0.01 8.97 (6.99, 11.51) <0.01
Surgery
   Yes Reference Reference
   No/unknown 7.69 (6.65, 8.89) <0.01 8.7 (6.84, 11.1) <0.01
Radiation
   Yes Reference Reference
   No/unknown 1.94 (1.69, 2.23) <0.01 1.83 (1.46, 2.30) <0.01
Chemotherapy
   Yes Reference Reference
   No/unknown 2.57 (2.25, 2.94) <0.01 2.29 (1.84,2.87) <0.01

CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard rate.

Figure 2 Nomogram to predict the 3- and 5-year OS of TPBC patients. Notes: A vertical line between each variable and points scale can be drawn to determine the points of each variable. The predicted survival rate was calculated according to the total points by drawing a vertical line from the Total Points scale to the OS scale. OS, overall survival; TPBC, triple-positive breast cancer.

Nomogram validation

The nomogram map was validated internally and externally using the bootstrap method, and the number of self-sampling times was B =1,000. The validation results showed that the C-index of the training group was 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.836, 0.863], while the C-index of the verification group was 0.833 (95% CI: 0.807, 0.858). A higher C-index indicates more accurate prognostic prediction (12). The correction lines of the 3- and 5-year survival rates of the modeling group and the verification group are shown in Figure 3. As Figure 3 shows, the correction curves of the modeling group and the verification group are close to the ideal 45° dotted line, indicating a good consistency between the predicted value and the actual value (13). A score for each of the clinical pathological features of a TPBC patient can be obtained by projecting the patient’s score upwards onto a small scale and summing the scores to obtain a total score, the higher the total score, the worse the survival prognosis, and the lower the OS rate at 3 and 5 years (14).

Figure 3 Calibration plots for predictions for the (A) 3- and (B) 5-year OS. The nomogram-predicted probability of OS is plotted on the X-axis, and the actual OS is plotted on the Y-axis. The predictions fall at a diagonal 45 line in the calibration plot, which indicates high prediction accuracy. OS, overall survival.

Discussion

Currently, the TNM staging system is the most commonly used method to predict the prognosis of patients (15,16). However, the TNM staging system is not always clinically accurate. A nomogram is a graphical representation of a clinical prediction model, and nomograms are widely used in the prediction of various cancers (17,18). Just like a scoring system, nomograms can also be used to calculate total scores based on the values of individual’s predictive variables, and the probability is calculated based on the total score (19). In most cancers, nomograms are more accurate than the TNM staging system at predicting prognosis (20). As one of America’s largest tumor registration database currently, the SEER database contains a large number of data of evidence-based medicine, including details of the basic situation of patients, the tumor size, the primary lesion, the treatment and follow-up situation, and the cause of death. Evidence-based clinical research provides evidence to support patient treatment. Thus, this study developed a prognostic prediction model for TPBC patients based on data from the SEER database.

TPBC is characterized by the positive expression of ER, PR, and HER-2, and accounts for about 10% of all breast cancer cases. Compared to other types of breast cancer, relatively few clinical studies on TPBC have currently been conducted. However, both basic and clinical studies suggest that it may be a subtype of interest in the classification and treatment of breast cancer and deserves further exploration (21). The prognosis of TPBC is slightly worse than that of HR (+) /HER-2 (–) patients, which is in turn better than that of patients with overexpressed HER-2. Among patients with advanced breast cancer, patients with TPBC have a better prognosis than patients with HR-/HER2+ (22).

To date, no reliable predictive model has been developed to predict the survival of TPBC patients. Thus, we developed a nomogram using a Cox regression model to the predict the 3- and 5-year OS of TPBC patients. The C-Index and calibration curve revealed that the nomogram could accurately predict the OS of TPBC patients. The univariate analysis suggested that race, age, marital status, tumor grade, T stage, N stage, M stage, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy were all independent risk factors affecting the survival rate of patients with TPBC. These independent risk factors were basically consistent with clinical observations.

Age has always been regarded as an independent risk factor affecting the prognosis of breast cancer patients. The results of this study showed that TPBC patients aged >60 years had a poor prognosis, and the older they were, the worse their prognosis (23,24). Conversely, patients aged <60 years had a better prognosis.

Previous study has confirmed that marital status can influence the incidence of breast cancer, and our results are consistent with those of previous study (25). This may be because women with terrible marital status often present with disorders of the endocrine system, high cortisol levels, an altered internal environment, and impaired anti-tumor function (26). The results of this study also suggested that black women have a poorer prognosis than white women and women from other racial groups. This finding has been reported previously (27,28).

In relation to TNM stage, most of the TPBC patients were in the T0–1, N0–1, and M0 stages, indicating that the TPBC patients were in the early stages at the time of their initial diagnoses. We also observed that TNM staging had a strong effect on OS. Further, we found that surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy affected the prognosis of patients with TPBC. Notably, there was no significant difference in the survival of patients who received surgery and those who did not. This suggests that surgery is an effective treatment for patients with TPBC. Research has shown that there is no significant difference in the survival rate of patients with TPBC after breast preservation and total mastectomy (29).

At present, the main adjuvant therapy for TPBC is chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy, followed by endocrine therapy. Compared to ER-PR-HER2+ breast cancer, TPBC is less invasive and HER-2 expression levels are lower (30). Among all TNBC patients, male patients have a higher aggressiveness and are more likely to have metastases than female patients (31). Trastuzumab is a key treatment strategy for TPBC patients and is also the first-line treatment option for relapsed and metastatic patients. Recent studies suggest that the high expression of STC2, BCL2, and CDCA8 indicates a relatively good prognosis for TPBC patients. However, there is relatively little benefit from trastuzumab treatment (32). Previous study has shown that HR and a HER-2 status affect the treatment outcomes of TPBC patients. An ER level of 30% or higher, to chemotherapy reactivity is reduced, the joint by trastuzumab can improve the resistance to chemotherapy sensitivity, but when ER expression is >50%, the joint by trastuzumab resistance to treatment for patients with 5 years of PFS shows no obvious change, which may be related to its HER-2 and ER signaling pathways between cross-talk is related to the role (33).

The constructed nomogram showed good discrimination and performance. However, our study still had some limitations. First, 10,865 of the initially identified 25,658 patients were excluded due to a lack of data, which may have a led to selection bias. Second, we did not include detailed treatment details, such as the surgical methods, and chemotherapy regimens. Third, several prognostic factors (e.g., fertility history, lactation history, and Ki-67 expression) were lacking. Fourth, the constructed nomogram was based on a set of reviews and needs to be further validated in prospective clinical trials. Despite these limitations, the prognostic nomogram presents an effective model for the accurate prediction of survival outcomes for TPBC patients.

To sum up, the results of this study indicated that race, age, marital status, tumor grade, TNM stage, surgical treatment, chemical treatment, and radiotherapy may be the major affecting factors the prognosis of TPBC patients. Early surgical interventions can lead to a relatively good long-term survival prognosis for patients. The predictive OS nomogram established in this study, the predictive performance and clinical application of which was evaluated by the C-index and calibration curve, effectively predicted the 3- and 5-year OS of TPBC patients in this data set, and accurately stratified their risk; thus, it may assist surgeons in making clinical decisions.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the TRIPOD reporting checklist. Available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-3560/rc

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-3560/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Since any information in the SEER database does not require explicit consent from the patients, the study was not subject to the ethical approval requirements of the institutional review board. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013).

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

  1. Sharma R. Breast cancer incidence, mortality and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) are associated with human development, 1990-2016: evidence from Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Breast Cancer 2019;26:428-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Vici P, Pizzuti L, Natoli C, et al. Triple positive breast cancer: a distinct subtype? Cancer Treat Rev 2015;41:69-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Popovska S, Ivanov I. Lymphatic vascularization in primary breast cancer: HER2 overexpressing tumors contain more lymphatics than steroid receptor positive, triple-positive and triple negative breast carcinomas. Turk Patoloji Derg 2014;30:124-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Kast K, Link T, Friedrich K, et al. Impact of breast cancer subtypes and patterns of metastasis on outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015;150:621-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. You SH, Chae BJ, Eom YH, et al. Clinical Differences in Triple-Positive Operable Breast Cancer Subtypes in Korean Patients: An Analysis of Korean Breast Cancer Registry Data. J Breast Cancer 2018;21:415-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Iancu G, Vasile D, Iancu RC, et al. "Triple positive" breast cancer - a novel category? Rom J Morphol Embryol 2017;58:21-6. [PubMed]
  7. Li XF, Fu WF, Zhang J, et al. An iron metabolism and immune related gene signature for the prediction of clinical outcome and molecular characteristics of triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2022;22:619. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Bae JS, Chang W, Kim SH, et al. Development of a predictive model for extragastric recurrence after curative resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2022;25:255-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Drokow EK, Baffour AA, Effah CY, et al. Building a predictive model to assist in the diagnosis of cervical cancer. Future Oncol 2022;18:67-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Guo R, Si J, Xue J, et al. Changing patterns and survival improvements of young breast cancer in China and SEER database, 1999-2017. Chin J Cancer Res 2019;31:653-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Pan X, Yang W, Chen Y, et al. Nomogram for predicting the overall survival of patients with inflammatory breast cancer: A SEER-based study. Breast 2019;47:56-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj GV, et al. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1364-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Zhang Y, Zhang J, Zeng H, et al. Nomograms for predicting the overall and cancer-specific survival of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a SEER-based study. Oncotarget 2017;8:92978-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Dieci MV, Guarneri V. Should triple-positive breast cancer be recognized as a distinct subtype? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2020;20:1011-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Hortobagyi GN, Edge SB, Giuliano A. New and Important Changes in the TNM Staging System for Breast Cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2018;38:457-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Yang L, Wang S, Zhou Y, et al. Evaluation of the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC/UICC TNM staging systems for lung cancer in a large North American cohort. Oncotarget 2017;8:66784-95.
  17. Huitzil-Melendez FD, Capanu M, O'Reilly EM, et al. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: which staging systems best predict prognosis? J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2889-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Hu ZG, Hu K, Li WX, et al. Prognostic factors and nomogram for cancer-specific death in non small cell lung cancer with malignant pericardial effusion. PLoS One 2019;14:e0217007. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Wu JY, Wang YF, Ma H, et al. Nomograms predicting long-term survival in patients with invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: A population-based study. World J Gastroenterol 2020;26:535-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Balachandran VP, Gonen M, Smith JJ, et al. Nomograms in oncology: more than meets the eye. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:e173-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Kolarova I, Vanasek J, Odrazka K, et al. Therapeutic significance of hormone receptor positivity in patients with HER-2 positive breast cancer. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2019;163:285-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Kolarova I, Dusek L, Ryska A, et al. Impact of Hormone Receptor Status on the Behaviour of HER2+ Breast Cancer. In Vivo 2020;34:3441-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Wong FY, Tham WY, Nei WL, et al. Age exerts a continuous effect in the outcomes of Asian breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer Commun (Lond) 2018;38:39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Kim HJ, Kim S, Freedman RA, et al. The impact of young age at diagnosis (age <40 years) on prognosis varies by breast cancer subtype: A U.S. SEER database analysis. Breast 2022;61:77-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Martínez ME, Unkart JT, Tao L, et al. Prognostic significance of marital status in breast cancer survival: A population-based study. PLoS One 2017;12:e0175515. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Saxton JM, Scott EJ, Daley AJ, et al. Effects of an exercise and hypocaloric healthy eating intervention on indices of psychological health status, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis regulation and immune function after early-stage breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res 2014;16:R39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Farias AJ, Ochoa CY, Toledo G, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with health care in association with earlier stage at breast cancer diagnosis: findings from the SEER-CAHPS data. Cancer Causes Control 2020;31:13-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Arciero CA, Yang J, Peng L, et al. African American patients with breast cancer have worse prognosis than white patients in certain subtypes and stages. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;166:743-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Du J, Chen Z, Luo Y, et al. Primary tumors surgery was to IV three positive analysis the prognosis of patients with breast cancer: retrospective study on the basis of SEER database. Chinese J Clin Med 2021;27:578-88.
  30. Zhao S, Liu XY, Jin X, et al. Molecular portraits and trastuzumab responsiveness of estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, and HER2-positive breast cancer. Theranostics 2019;9:4935-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  31. Wang B, Wang H, Zhao A, et al. Poor prognosis of male triple-positive breast Cancer patients: a propensity score matched SEER analysis and molecular portraits. BMC Cancer 2021;21:523. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  32. Seiffert K, Schmalfeldt B, Müller V. Current status of targeted treatment in breast cancer. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2017;142:1669-75. [PubMed]
  33. Alqaisi A, Chen L, Romond E, et al. Impact of estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) co-expression on breast cancer disease characteristics: implications for tumor biology and research. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;148:437-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]

(English Language Editor: L. Huleatt)

Cite this article as: Wang X, Wang H, Liu F, Jie L, Song Z. Establishment and verification of a nomogram for predicting survival in patients with triple-positive breast cancer. Ann Transl Med 2022;10(16):884. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-3560

Article Options

Download Citation

Share