## Results
### Patient Characteristics
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**c-MET [n (\%)]**} \\ \cline{2-3}
**Parameter** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**High**} \\  & **(n = 19)** & **(n = 52)** & \\ \hline Age, years & & & 0.064 \\ \(<\)50 & 7 (17.9\%) & 32 (82.1\%) & \\ \(\geq\)50 & 12 (37.5\%) & 20 (62.5\%) & \\ Menopausal status & & & 0.057 \\ Premenopausal & 7 (18.9\%) & 30 (81.1\%) & \\ Postmenopausal & 12 (40.0\%) & 18 (60.0\%) & \\ Body mass index (BMI), kg/m\({}^{2}\) & & & 0.271 \\ Non-obese & 13 (31.7\%) & 28 (68.3\%) & \\ Obese & 6 (20.0\%) & 24 (80.0\%) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Expression of c-MET and its association with clinicopathologic parameters in breast cancer patients (n = 71). Correlation between IR and c-MET Expression with Climopathologic Characteristics Based on Menopausal Status  
Correlations between IR and c-MET scores and clinicopathologic factors associated with outcomes in breast cancer patients stratified according to menopausal status are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Among premenopausal cases, IR expression scores were significantly higher in patients with grade I/II disease (\(p\) = 0.025), ER-positive (\(p\) = 0.030), and PR-positive carcinoma (\(p\) = 0.015) (Table 5). There were no significant correlations between IR scores with tumor stage, lymph node status, HER2, and LVI among premenopausal breast cancer patients. Among postmenopausal cases, IR immunostaining scores lacked significant correlation with all clinicopathologic variables tested. c-MET expression scores were significantly higher among premenopausal patients with ER-positive (\(p\) = 0.007) and PR-positive carcinoma (\(p\) = 0.024) (Table 6). There were no significant correlations between c-MET scores with the other tumor characteristics among premenopausal cases. Similar to  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**IR Score**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**c-MET Score**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **rho** & **p-Value** & **rho** & **p-Value** \\ \hline Age, years & 0.054 & 0.659 & \(-\)0.103 & 0.394 \\ BMI, kg/m\({}^{2}\) & 0.155 & 0.207 & 0.001 & 0.991 \\ Tumor size, cm & 0.029 & 0.823 & 0.129 & 0.306 \\ Lymph nodes & 0.199 & 0.130 & 0.151 & 0.244 \\ IR score & \multicolumn{2}{c}{—  
findings with IR, c-MET expression lacked significant correlations with all clinicopathologic variables tested among postmenopausal breast cancer patients in this study (Table 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Premenopausal**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Postmenopausal**} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 37)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 30)**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Parameter** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**c-MET Score**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**c-MET Score**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Median (IQR)** & \(p\)**-Value** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median (IQR)**} \\ \hline Grade & & 0.404 & & 0.780 \\ I/II & 8.0 (8.0–12.0) & & 7.0 (3.75–9.0) & \\ III & 8.0 (7.5–12.0) & & 8.0 (3.75–8.0) & \\ Stage & & 0.911 & & 0.143 \\ Early (I/II) & 8.0 (8.0–12.0) & & 7.0 (3.0–8.0) & \\ Advanced (III/IV) & 8.0 (8.0–11.0) & & 8.0 (6.0–8.0) & \\ Lymph nodes & & 0.569 & & 0.143 \\ Negative & 8.0 (8.0–12.0) & & 8.0 (5.0–8.0) & \\ Positive & 8.0 (8.0–9.0) & & 5.0 (3.0–8.0) & \\ ER & & 0.007 * & & 0.317 \\ Positive & 12.0 (8.0–12.0) & & 5.0 (3.0–9.0) & \\ Negative & 8.0 (6.0–8.0) & & 8.0 (6.0–8.0) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Correlation between c-MET expression with clinicopathologic factors stratified by menopausal status among breast cancer patients (n = 67).