## Results
### Patient Characteristics
Alternatively, high IR expression was associated with an ER-positive status (39.1%). No significant associations were found between IR expression and patient age, BMI, menopausal status, tumor stage, lymph node involvement, PR, HER2, or LVI (Table 2). Expression of c-MET was detected in all cases and was mainly observed as cytoplasmic staining of breast cancer cells (Figure 1E-G). c-MET expression was determined to be strongly positive in 15 (21.1%) cases, moderate in 48 (67.6%), and mild in 8 (11.3%) patients (Figure 1E-G). Mean immunoreactive score (IRS) for c-MET expression was 7.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 with a range from 2-12 (median 8.0, IQR 6.0-8.0). The association between c-MET expression and clinicopathologic characteristics of patients is presented in Table 3. Low c-MET expression was found in 19 (26.8%) patients, while 52 (73.2%) patients had high expression. No significant associations were found between c-MET expression and all demographic and clinicopathologic parameters assessed among the entire sample of breast cancer patients (Table 3). Correlation between receptor expression scores and clinicopathologic characteristics associated with outcomes in breast cancer patients is shown in Table 4. There was a significant positive correlation between IR and c-MET expression scores among the entire cohort (rho = 0.458, \(p\) < 0.001). There were no significant correlations between IR or c-MET scores and age at diagnosis, BMI, tumor size, or number of lymph nodes among breast cancer patients (Table 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Characteristics**} & **n (\%)** \\ \hline HER2 & \\ Positive & 19 (26.8) \\ Negative & 52 (73.2) \\ Molecular subtype & \\ Luminal & 23 (32.4) \\ HER2–positive & 19 (26.8) \\ Triple–negative & 29 (40.8) \\ Surgery & \\ Mastectomy & 60 (84.5) \\ Wide local excision & 11 (15.5) \\ Adjuvant chemotherapy & \\ Yes & 59 (83.1) \\ No & 4 (5.6) \\ Unknown & 8 (11.3) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} BMI, body mass index. ER, estrogen receptor. HRT, hormone replacement therapy. HER2, human epidermal growth factors receptor 2. IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma. ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma. LVI, lymphovascular invasion. PR, progesterone receptor.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Cont. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**IR [n (\%)]**} \\ \cline{2-3}
**Parameter** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**High**} \\  & **(n = 53)** & **(n = 15)** & \\ \hline Age, years & & & 0.341 \\ \(<\)50 & 28 (73.7\%) & 10 (26.3\%) & \\ \(\geq\)50 & 25 (83.3\%) & 5 (16.7\%) & \\ Menopausal status & & & 0.195 \\ Premenopausal & 26 (72.2\%) & 10 (27.8\%) & \\ Postmenopausal & 24 (85.7\%) & 4 (14.3\%) & \\ BMI, kg/m\({}^{2}\) & & & 0.533 \\ Non-obese & 33 (80.5\%) & 8 (19.5\%) & \\ Obese & 20 (74.1\%) & 7 (25.9\%) & \\ Grade & & & 0.017 \({}^{*}\) \\ I/II & 11 (57.9\%) & 8 (42.1\%) & \\ III & 40 (85.1\%) & 7 (14.9\%) & \\ Stage & & & 0.635 \\ Early (I and II) & 26 (81.3\%) & 6 (18.8\%) & \\ Advanced (III and IV) & 26 (76.5\%) & 8 (23.5\%) & \\ Lymph nodes & & & 0.571 \\ Negative & 18 (75.0\%) & 6 (25.0\%) & \\ Positive & 30 (81.1\%) & 7 (18.9\%) & \\ ER & & & 0.015 \({}^{*}\) \\ Positive & 14 (60.9\%) & 9 (39.1\%) & \\ Negative & 39 (86.7\%) & 6 (13.3\%) & \\ PR & & & 0.067 \\ Positive & 12 (63.2\%) & 7 (36.8\%) & \\ Negative & 41 (83.7\%) & 8 (16.3\%) & \\ HER2 & & & 0.081 \\ Positive & 15 (93.8\%) & 1 (6.3\%) & \\ Negative & 39 (73.1\%) & 14 (26.9\%) & \\ LVI & & & 0.244 \\ Unidentified & 19 (70.4\%) & 8 (29.6\%) & \\ Identified & 29 (82.9\%) & 6 (17.1\%) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Low, IRS = 0–6, high, IRS = 7–12. Pearson’s chi-square test of independence. Statistically significant at \({}^{*}\)\(p<\) 0.05 BMI, body mass index. ER, estrogen receptor. HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. IR, insulin receptor. LVI, lymphovascular invasion. PR, progesterone receptor.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Expression of IR (insulin receptor) and its association with clinicopathologic parameters in breast cancer patients (n = 68).