Hong Zhou

Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER2)-negative breast cancers (BCs) contain HER2-low and HER2-zero ones. HER2-low breast cancer has been receiving wide-spread concerns as the marvelous effect of novel anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates, however, the characteristic remains unknown. Our aim was to explore the differences of clinicopathological indicators and survival outcomes between HER2-low and HER2-0 breast cancers. We retrospectively analyzed 501 invasive breast cancer patients with complete data on HER2 status from 2017 to 2021 in our single center, of whom 415 HER2 negative patients were included for subsequent analysis. Each cohort was further divided into hormone receptor (HR) positive and HR negative subgroup. Clinicopathological factors and survival outcomes were collected and compared between HER2-low BCs and HER2-0 BCs. HER2-low BCs was obviously higher in HR positive BCs, with 277 (90.5%) HER2-low HR positive patients, 29 (9.5%) HER2-low HR negative patients, 68 (62.4%) HER2-0 HR positive patients and 41 (37.6%) HER2-0 HR negative patients (P < 0.001). Significant differences between HER2-low BCs and Her2-0 BCs were observed in lymph node ratio (LNR) (mean rank, 215 vs. 188 P = 0.014), estrogen receptor (ER)expression (90.5% vs. 62.4% P < 0.001), progesterone receptor (PR) expression (84.3% vs. 56.9% P < 0.001), Ki-67 expression (46.4% vs. 61.5% P < 0.001), androgen receptor (AR) expression (68% vs. 50.5% P < 0.001), adjuvant chemotherapy (69% vs. 79.8% P = 0.03). HER2-low BCs had lower histological grade than HER2-0 BCs, with grade I–II (68.7% vs. 43.1%) and grade III (22.2% vs. 43.1%) P < 0.01. No statistical differences were detected between the two groups for DFS and DDFS. Our results demonstrated that HR and AR status was closely related to HER2-low breast cancers. Further exploration about survival prognosis of HER2-low breast cancer is badly needed.

Background: Adenocarcinoma in Esophagogastric Junction (AEG) is a severe gastrointestinal malignancy with a unique clinicopathological feature. Hence, we aimed to develop a competing risk nomogram for predicting survival for AEG patients and compared it with new 8th traditional tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. Methods: Based on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database of AEG patients between 2004 and 2010, we used univariate and multivariate analysis to filter clinical factors and then built a competing risk nomogram to predict AEG cause-specific survival. We then measured the clinical accuracy by comparing them to the 8th TNM stage with a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, Brier score, and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). External validation was performed in 273 patients from China National Cancer Center. Results: A total of 1755 patients were included in this study. The nomogram was based on five variables: Number of examined lymph nodes, grade, invasion, metastatic LNs, and age. The results of the nomogram was greater than traditional TNM staging with ROC curve (1-year AUC: 0.747 vs. 0.641, 3-year AUC: 0.761 vs. 0.679, 5-year AUC: 0.759 vs. 0.682, 7-year AUC: 0.749 vs. 0.673, P < 0.001), Brier score (3-year: 0.198 vs. 0.217, P = 0.012; 5-year: 0.198 vs. 0.216, P = 0.008; 7-year: 0.199 vs. 0.215, P = 0.014) and DCA. In external validation, the nomogram also showed better diagnostic value than traditional TNM staging and great prediction accuracy. Conclusion: We developed and validated a novel nomogram and risk stratification system integrating clinicopathological characteristics for AEG patients. The model showed superior prediction ability for AEG patients than traditional TNM classification.