Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Breast cancer staging for patients with "low-risk" disease: Are they all the same?

Publication ,  Journal Article
Nierenberg, TC; Thomas, SM; Reason, EH; Modell Parrish, KJ; Botty van den Bruele, A; Chiba, A; DiNome, ML; Woriax, HE; Hwang, ES; Westbrook, KE ...
Published in: Cancer
February 15, 2026

BACKGROUND: Contemporary breast cancer staging incorporates anatomic and biologic factors. Although a low (<11) Oncotype Recurrence Score (RS) is linked to favorable survival, it is unclear if RS alone justifies downstaging to pathologic prognostic stage (PPS) IA. This study evaluated whether a low RS equates prognostically to PPS IA. METHODS: Patients (18-75 years) with pT1-3/pN0-1/M0, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative unilateral invasive breast cancer, diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy or lacking RS data were excluded. Patients were grouped by PPS, with overall survival (OS) estimated using Kaplan-Meier and adjusted with Cox models. RESULTS: Among 231,031 patients, 23.8% had RS < 11, 36.6% had RS 11-17, 25.8% had RS 18-25, and 13.8% had RS > 25. Median follow up was 58.9 months. Most with RS < 11 were PPS IA (94.2%), yet OS declined with higher stage (p < .001). Adjusted analyses showed worse OS for higher stages within RS < 11 (IB: HR 1.66 [95% CI, 1.34-2.05]; IIA: HR 2.29 [1.44-3.65]; IIB: HR 2.48 [1.03-5.95]). In the RS 11-17 group, 90.8% were PPS IA. Five-year OS varied (IA: 97.8%, IB: 95.8%, IIA: 95.2%, IIB: 93.7%, IIIA: 100%; p < .001). Adjusted OS differences persisted (IB: HR 1.51 [1.32-1.73]; IIA: HR 1.32 [1.01-1.72]; IIB: HR 1.58 [0.95-2.63]; IIIA: HR 1.44 (0.21-9.95]). CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic stage significantly influences survival among patients with low RS. RS < 11 alone should not automatically downstage patients to PPS IA; anatomic and other nongenomic factors remain important for prognosis.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Cancer

DOI

EISSN

1097-0142

Publication Date

February 15, 2026

Volume

132

Issue

4

Start / End Page

e70305

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Young Adult
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Prognosis
  • Oncology & Carcinogenesis
  • Neoplasm Staging
  • Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
  • Middle Aged
  • Kaplan-Meier Estimate
  • Humans
  • Female
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Nierenberg, T. C., Thomas, S. M., Reason, E. H., Modell Parrish, K. J., Botty van den Bruele, A., Chiba, A., … Plichta, J. K. (2026). Breast cancer staging for patients with "low-risk" disease: Are they all the same? Cancer, 132(4), e70305. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.70305
Nierenberg, Tori C., Samantha M. Thomas, Ellery H. Reason, Kendra J. Modell Parrish, Astrid Botty van den Bruele, Akiko Chiba, Maggie L. DiNome, et al. “Breast cancer staging for patients with "low-risk" disease: Are they all the same?Cancer 132, no. 4 (February 15, 2026): e70305. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.70305.
Nierenberg TC, Thomas SM, Reason EH, Modell Parrish KJ, Botty van den Bruele A, Chiba A, et al. Breast cancer staging for patients with "low-risk" disease: Are they all the same? Cancer. 2026 Feb 15;132(4):e70305.
Nierenberg, Tori C., et al. “Breast cancer staging for patients with "low-risk" disease: Are they all the same?Cancer, vol. 132, no. 4, Feb. 2026, p. e70305. Pubmed, doi:10.1002/cncr.70305.
Nierenberg TC, Thomas SM, Reason EH, Modell Parrish KJ, Botty van den Bruele A, Chiba A, DiNome ML, Woriax HE, Hwang ES, Westbrook KE, Plichta JK. Breast cancer staging for patients with "low-risk" disease: Are they all the same? Cancer. 2026 Feb 15;132(4):e70305.
Journal cover image

Published In

Cancer

DOI

EISSN

1097-0142

Publication Date

February 15, 2026

Volume

132

Issue

4

Start / End Page

e70305

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Young Adult
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Prognosis
  • Oncology & Carcinogenesis
  • Neoplasm Staging
  • Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
  • Middle Aged
  • Kaplan-Meier Estimate
  • Humans
  • Female