{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028402366863905324, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03727810650887574, 'mean_word_length': 4.655518394648829, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Clinicopathological Profile of Breast Cancer in Young Women from a Tertiary Care Center


 Background Increasing number of young breast cancer patients are seen in India and many of these young breast cancer patients are considered to have more aggressive disease biology.
 Aim The aim of this article was to study the clinicopathological profile of breast cancer patients in the young and older patients to understand the difference between these two groups.
 Methods This was a retrospective study conducted on 421 breast cancer patients.
 Results Total of 421 breast cancer patients were studied, out of which 158 patients were less than or equal to 40 years age group and 263 patients were in more than or equal to 50 years age group. Commonest T stage on presentation was T2, which was seen 56.32% of young breast cancer patients and in 64.64% of older patients. Higher nodal spread was seen in younger patients when compared with older patients (p-value = 0.00001). Older group patients had significant decline from anatomical to pathological prognostic stage group compared with younger group (29 vs. 13.29%; p-value = 0.00001). Grade 3 tumors were seen in 58.23% of younger patients and 22.05% of older patients (p-value = 0.00001). Triple-negative breast cancer was seen more commonly in younger group compared with older group (p-value = 0.0088).
 Conclusions Significant number of breast cancer patients present in younger age group in India. Younger breast cancer patients tend to have higher grade tumors and triple-negative breast cancer is common in younger age groups. Pathological prognostic stage grouping appears clinically more relevant than anatomical stage groups.