medRxiv (Medicine)
2026-06-24
DOI: HASH:55a1a083101466764c6b763543394ff0
Background Lymph node status and molecular subtype are among the most established prognostic factors in breast cancer. However, the extent to which their prognostic effects vary across different tumor size categories and clinical subgroups remains incompletely understood. We investigated the interplay between nodal status, molecular subtype, and tumor size in a large real world breast cancer cohort and developed a prognostic nomogram for individualized survival prediction. Methods A total of 12,225 women with invasive breast cancer from the Shiraz Breast Cancer Registry were analyzed. Patients were stratified according to tumor size, lymph node status, and molecular subtype. Overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) were evaluated using Kaplan Meier analyses and subgroup comparisons. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of lymph node involvement, while Cox regression was used to determine independent prognostic factors. A nomogram was subsequently developed and internally validated for prediction of 3-year and 5-year OS. Results Of 12,225 patients, 41.7% had lymph node positive disease. Across nearly all tumor size categories and molecular subtypes, nodal involvement was associated with significantly worse OS and DFS. Notably, the survival disadvantage associated with nodal positivity was more pronounced among patients with larger tumors and among those with HER2 positive and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Although TNBC demonstrated the lowest rate of lymph node involvement among molecular subtypes (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.63), it appeared to show one of the largest survival gaps between node positive and node negative disease. In the overall cohort, survival outcomes generally ranked from best to worst as Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 positive, and TNBC. However, survival differences among molecular subtypes were not consistently observed across all tumor size and nodal status subgroups. When significant differences were present, Luminal A and Luminal B tumors consistently showed superior outcomes compared with HER2 positive and TNBC tumors. Multivariable analysis identified lymph node status, tumor size, molecular subtype, lymphovascular invasion, tumor necrosis, type of surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy as independent prognostic factors. A nomogram integrating clinicopathological and treatment variables demonstrated good predictive performance, with time dependent AUCs of 0.749 and 0.751 for 3 year and 5 year OS, respectively, and showed good calibration. Conclusions The prognostic impact of lymph node status is not uniform across breast cancer subgroups and appears particularly pronounced in larger tumors and biologically aggressive subtypes. Despite a lower likelihood of nodal involvement, TNBC showed substantial outcome deterioration when nodal metastasis was present. These findings highlight the importance of jointly considering nodal status, molecular subtype, and tumor burden in prognostic assessment.