Prediction of breast cancer sensitivity to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on status of DNA damage repair proteins

Breast Cancer Research

Table 4 Univariate analysis of variance for mean tumor volume reduction

		n	Mean tumor volume reduction (%) ± SD	P
After EC
	Age (years)
	-50	30	64.1 ± 25.9	0.1710
	51-	29	54.9 ± 25.4
	Cancer stage
	II	53	61.5 ± 25.1	0.0962
	III	5	55.7 ± 29.1
	IV	2	21.9 ± 6.4
	Tumor stage
	T2	54	60.8 ± 25.3	0.3059
	T3	6	21.9 ± 6.4
	Nodal status
	N-	24	62.7 ± 24.9	0.4557
	N+	36	57.6 ± 26.6
	Subtype
	Luminal A	37	58.8 ± 21.3	0.2923
	Luminal B	6	72.9 ± 9.4
	HER2	11	50.4 ± 36.4
	Basal-like	6	69.4 ± 37.0
	DDR score
	0	2	94.6 ± 7.6	0.0069
	1	15	57.3 ± 19.4
	2	23	62.8 ± 22.9
	3	12	61.1 ± 26.6
	4	6	28.4 ± 28.1
After EC-DOC
	Age
	-50	30	80.6 ± 23.9	0.0804
	51-	29	71.2 ± 15.7
	Cancer stage
	II	52	77.9 ± 19.8	0.1230
	III	5	64.3 ± 25.7
	IV	2	54.7 ± 17.6
	Tumor stage
	T2	53	77.7 ± 19.7	0.0538
	T3	6	60.6 ± 24.7
	Nodal status
	N-	23	83.7 ± 14.3	0.0201
	N+	36	71.0 ± 22.7
	Subtype
	Luminal A	36	77.9 ± 16.1	0.0789
	Luminal B	6	86.0 ± 9.5
	HER2	11	62.4 ± 30.5
	Basal-like	6	79.7 ± 24.8
	DDR score
	0	2	99.6 ± 0.6	0.0035
	1	14	77.2 ± 13.2
	2	23	81.0 ± 14.7
	3	12	70.7 ± 27.5
	4	6	49.9 ± 22.0

DDR, DNA Damage Response; DOC, docetaxel; EC, epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide; HER, human epidermal growth factor receptor; SD, standard deviation.

ISSN: 1465-542X