Breast carcinoma is a biologically heterogeneous disease characterised by distinct molecular subtypes with variable clinicopathological features and survival outcomes. Molecular classification has improved risk stratification and prognostic assessment. To evaluate the association between molecular subtypes of breast carcinoma and clinicopathological characteristics and to compare overall and relapse-free survival across subtypes using the METABRIC clinical dataset. A retrospective secondary analysis was conducted using the METABRIC dataset comprising 2,509 patients. After excluding cases with missing molecular subtype data, 1,980 patients were analysed. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation analysis were performed to assess associations between molecular subtypes and clinical variables. Survival differences were evaluated using mean overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). Luminal A was the most prevalent subtype (35.35%), followed by Luminal B (23.99%). Basal and HER2-enriched subtypes were associated with larger tumour size, higher histologic grade, and increased lymph node involvement. Luminal subtypes demonstrated high ER positivity, whereas HER2-enriched tumours showed increased HER2 expression. Luminal A exhibited the longest mean OS (140.27 months) and RFS (124.89 months). Tumour size and lymph node positivity were negatively correlated with survival duration. Molecular subtypes are significantly associated with distinct clinicopathological features and survival outcomes. Intrinsic subtyping provides valuable prognostic information and supports subtype-based risk stratification in breast carcinoma.
Keywords: Breast carcinoma, Molecular subtypes, Clinicopathological features, Overall survival, Relapse-free survival
How to cite this article: Selvarasu N, Farid AMS, Monisha G, Pavithra, Velavan SK, Molecular Subtypes of Breast Carcinoma and Their Association with Clinicopathological Features and Survival Outcomes. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(4s): 603-611; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.4s.71
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None