Comparison of EndoPredict and Oncotype DX test results in hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer

Correlation of MammaPrint to Histopathologic Variables and Comparison to Magee Equations in Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Cohorts of Estrogen-Receptor Positive HER2-Negative Breast Carcinoma

MammaPrint (MP) is a multigene assay utilized for prognostic and predictive use in early stage ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer (BC). There is limited data on MP correlation to histopathologic variables, including multivariable model Magee Equations (MEs). We compared pathologic variables to MP on 365 ER+/HER2-negative BCs in the adjuvant setting. Further, we analyzed MP and ME results in 26 core biopsy-proven ER+/HER2-negative BCs subjected to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Post-NACT response was assessed by residual cancer burden (RCB) score. In the adjuvant cohort (n=365), high-risk (HR) MP correlated with high Nottingham score, low progesterone receptor H-score, ductal morphology, high Ki-67 index, and high ME score. In the neoadjuvant cohort (n=26), 24 were MP-HR and 2 were MP low-risk (MP-LR). The 2 MP-LR cases correlated with average ME scores of ≤25 and showed RCB scores of 2 or 3. Of the 24 MP-HR, 2 showed RCB-0 or RCB-1. Average ME>25 was seen in both of these cases and 7 others corresponding to an RCB-0 and RCB-1 rate of 22% (2 of 9) with ME>25 compared with 8% (2 of 24) with MP-HR. Lack of significant benefit from NACT (RCB-2 or RCB-3) was accurately predicted by average ME≤25 in 17 of 26 cases (65%) compared with only 2 of 26 cases (8%) with MP-LR. MP correlates with aggressive histopathologic features. While both MP and ME identified cases with robust chemotherapeutic response, MP overpredicted cases that would benefit. Therefore, MEs may more accurately predict response to NACT.

The Role of Molecular Profiling in De-Escalation of Toxic Therapy in Breast Cancer

The prevalence and mortality associated with breast cancer have forced healthcare providers to leverage surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy to achieve a cure. Whereas mortality has significantly dropped over the decades, long-term toxicities and healthcare costs are prohibitive. Therefore, a better understanding of tumor biology through molecular profiling is being utilized for de-escalation of treatment where appropriate. As research evolves, there is growing evidence that less aggressive treatment regimens, when appropriately tailored, can be equally effective for certain patient populations. This approach not only enhances the quality of life for patients by reducing the financial, physical, and emotional burdens associated with more invasive therapies but also promotes a more personalized treatment strategy. By focusing on precision medicine and understanding the biological characteristics of tumors, healthcare providers and patients can make informed decisions that balance safety with efficacy. The field of molecular profiling is a promising avenue for precision-targeted de-escalation and escalation of therapy to minimize the risk-benefit ratio.

A triple hormone receptor ER, AR, and VDR signature is a robust prognosis predictor in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence indicating the dominance of cell-of-origin signatures in molecular tumor patterns, translating these genome-wide patterns into actionable insights has been challenging. This study introduces breast cancer cell-of-origin signatures that offer significant prognostic value across all breast cancer subtypes and various clinical cohorts, compared to previously developed genomic signatures.

METHODS

We previously reported that triple hormone receptor (THR) co-expression patterns of androgen (AR), estrogen (ER), and vitamin D (VDR) receptors are maintained at the protein level in human breast cancers. Here, we developed corresponding mRNA signatures (THR-50 and THR-70) based on these patterns to categorize breast tumors by their THR expression levels. The THR mRNA signatures were evaluated across 56 breast cancer datasets (5040 patients) using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox proportional hazard regression, and unsupervised clustering.

RESULTS

The THR signatures effectively predict both overall and progression-free survival across all evaluated datasets, independent of subtype, grade, or treatment status, suggesting improvement over existing prognostic signatures. Furthermore, they delineate three distinct ER-positive breast cancer subtypes with significant survival in differences-expanding on the conventional two subtypes. Additionally, coupling THR-70 with an immune signature identifies a predominantly ER-negative breast cancer subgroup with a highly favorable prognosis, comparable to ER-positive cases, as well as an ER-negative subgroup with notably poor outcome, characterized by a 15-fold shorter survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The THR cell-of-origin signature introduces a novel dimension to breast cancer biology, potentially serving as a robust foundation for integrating additional prognostic biomarkers. These signatures offer utility as a prognostic index for stratifying existing breast cancer subtypes and for de novo classification of breast cancer cases. Moreover, THR signatures may also hold promise in predicting hormone treatment responses targeting AR and/or VDR.

Nottingham prognostic x (NPx): a risk stratification tool in ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer: a validation study

AIMS

In this study, we validate the use of Nottingham Prognostic x (NPx), consisting of tumour size, tumour grade, progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki67 in luminal BC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two large cohorts of luminal early-stage BC (n = 2864) were included. PR and Ki67 expression were assessed using full-face resection samples using immunohistochemistry. NPx was calculated and correlated with clinical variables and outcome, together with Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS), that is frequently used as a risk stratifier in luminal BC.

RESULTS

In the whole cohort, 38% of patients were classified as high risk using NPx which showed significant association with parameters characteristics of aggressive tumour behaviour and shorter survival (P < 0.0001). NPx classified the moderate Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) risk group (n = 1812) into two distinct prognostic subgroups. Of the 82% low-risk group, only 3.8% developed events. Contrasting this, 14% of the high-risk patients developed events during follow-up. A strong association was observed between NPx and Oncotype Dx RS (P < 0.0001), where 66% of patients with intermediate risk RS who had subsequent distant metastases also had a high-risk NPx.

CONCLUSION

NPx is a reliable prognostic index in patients with luminal early-stage BC, and in selected patients may be used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations.

Changes in Tissue Fluidity Predict Tumor Aggressiveness In Vivo

Cancer progression is caused by genetic changes and associated with various alterations in cell properties, which also affect a tumor's mechanical state. While an increased stiffness has been well known for long for solid tumors, it has limited prognostic power. It is hypothesized that cancer progression is accompanied by tissue fluidization, where portions of the tissue can change position across different length scales. Supported by tabletop magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) on stroma mimicking collagen gels and microscopic analysis of live cells inside patient derived tumor explants, an overview is provided of how cancer associated mechanisms, including cellular unjamming, proliferation, microenvironment composition, and remodeling can alter a tissue's fluidity and stiffness. In vivo, state-of-the-art multifrequency MRE can distinguish tumors from their surrounding host tissue by their rheological fingerprints. Most importantly, a meta-analysis on the currently available clinical studies is conducted and universal trends are identified. The results and conclusions are condensed into a gedankenexperiment about how a tumor can grow and eventually metastasize into its environment from a physics perspective to deduce corresponding mechanical properties. Based on stiffness, fluidity, spatial heterogeneity, and texture of the tumor front a roadmap for a prognosis of a tumor's aggressiveness and metastatic potential is presented.

ZNF92, an unexplored transcription factor with remarkably distinct breast cancer over-expression associated with prognosis and cell-of-origin

Tumor phenotype is shaped both by transforming genomic alterations and the normal cell-of-origin. We identified a cell-of-origin associated prognostic gene expression signature, ET-9, that correlates with remarkably shorter overall and relapse free breast cancer survival, 8.7 and 6.2 years respectively. The genes associated with the ET-9 signature are regulated by histone deacetylase 7 (HDAC7) partly through ZNF92, a previously unexplored transcription factor with a single PubMed citation since its cloning in 1990s. Remarkably, ZNF92 is distinctively over-expressed in breast cancer compared to other tumor types, on a par with the breast cancer specificity of the estrogen receptor. Importantly, ET-9 signature appears to be independent of proliferation, and correlates with outcome in lymph-node positive, HER2+, post-chemotherapy and triple-negative breast cancers. These features distinguish ET-9 from existing breast cancer prognostic signatures that are generally related to proliferation and correlate with outcome in lymph-node negative, ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers. Our results suggest that ET-9 could be also utilized as a predictive signature to select patients for HDAC inhibitor treatment.

[uPA/PAI-1 and EPClin®: Comparison of their impact on the management of intermediate-prognosis breast cancers]

OBJECTIVE

The uPA/PAI-1 assay and the EPClin® test are useful tools that add to clinico-anatomical characteristics to determine the indication of adjuvant chemotherapy in case of intermediate-prognosis invasive breast cancer. The principal purpose of our study was to analyze the concordance of uPA/PAI-1 and EPClin® in classification of patients into two groups: low and high risk of relapse.

METHODS

We prospectively included 63 patients treated for intermediate-prognosis invasive breast cancer. All of these patients received a uPA/PAI-1 assay and an EPClin® test.

RESULTS

The uPA/PAI-1 assay and EPClin® test were consistent for 56.2% and inconsistent for 43.8%. In the event of a discrepancy, the treatment decision was based in 95.2% of patients on the EPClin® test result. In total, 38 patients were selected for adjuvant chemotherapy after achievement of the two tests. The mean time to report results after surgery was 9 days for the uPA/PAI-1 assay and 35 days for the EPClin® test. No cases of recurrence or death were found, with an average follow-up of 32 months.

CONCLUSION

The EPClin® test resulted in more chemotherapy prescriptions than indicated by uPA/PAI-1. However, we can't conclude to the superiority of one of these two tests, survival data and the effectiveness of our study being insufficient. In general, studies comparing different signatures useful to the therapeutic decision of intermediate prognosis breast cancers should be encouraged.

Molecular Drivers of Oncotype DX, Prosigna, EndoPredict, and the Breast Cancer Index: A TransATAC Study

PURPOSE

The Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (RS), Prosigna Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50 (PAM50) Risk of Recurrence (ROR), EndoPredict (EP), and Breast Cancer Index (BCI) are used clinically for estimating risk of distant recurrence for patients receiving endocrine therapy. Discordances in estimates occur between them. We aimed to identify the molecular features that drive the tests and lead to these differences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analyses for RS, ROR, EP, and BCI were conducted by the manufacturers in the TransATAC sample collection that consisted of the tamoxifen or anastrozole arms of the ATAC trial. Estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative cases without chemotherapy treatment were included in which all four tests were available (n = 785). Clinicopathologic features included in some tests were excluded from the comparisons. Estrogen, proliferation, invasion, and HER2 module scores from RS were used to characterize the respective molecular features. Spearman correlation and analysis of variance tests were applied.

RESULTS

There were moderate to strong correlations among the four molecular scores (ρ = 0.63-0.74) except for RS versus ROR (ρ = 0.32) and RS versus BCI (ρ = 0.35). RS had strong negative correlation with its estrogen module (ρ = -0.79) and moderate positive correlation with its proliferation module (ρ = 0.36). RS's proliferation module explained 72.5% of ROR's variance, while the estrogen module explained only 0.6%. Most of EP's and BCI's variation was accounted for by the proliferation module (50.0% and 54.3%, respectively) and much less by the estrogen module (20.2% and 2.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In contrast to common understanding, RSs are determined more strongly by estrogen-related features and only weakly by proliferation markers. However, the EP, BCI, and particularly ROR scores are determined largely by proliferative features. These relationships help to explain the differences in the prognostic performance of the tests.

Prosigna® breast cancer assay: histopathologic correlation, development, and assessment of size, nodal status, Ki-67 (SiNK™) index for breast cancer prognosis

The Prosigna® assay is a United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) cleared molecular test for prognostic use in hormone receptor-positive stage I/II breast cancer in postmenopausal women. We analyzed histopathologic features of 79 cases with Prosigna® assay results and found a significant correlation between tumor size, grade, and Ki-67 labeling index with Prosigna® score (0-40, 41-60, and 61-100) and Prosigna® risk categories. Since the Prosigna® risk stratification is influenced by lymph node status, we designed an index that included lymph node status and the two most correlated variables (size and Ki-67 labeling index). This was termed the size, nodal, and Ki-67 (SiNK™) index and is calculated as follows: (size in mm) + (pN × 10) + (Ki-67 labeling index). The SiNK™ index was divided into ≤40 and >40 to test its prognostic significance in a well-characterized dataset of 106 ER+/HER2-negative stage I-II invasive breast cancers treated with standard multi-modality therapy with long term follow-up (average 101 months follow-up). Patients with SiNK™ ≤40 showed significantly improved distant recurrence-free survival (96% distant recurrence-free survival in SiNK™ ≤40 compared to 81% in SiNK™ >40; log-rank test p value: 0.0027). SiNK™ provides strong prognostic information in ERo+/HER2-negative breast cancers. SiNK™ index is simple to calculate using data from routine pathology reports. This should be further evaluated in larger datasets.

Comparison of breast cancer prognostic tests CanAssist Breast and Oncotype DX

BACKGROUND

CanAssist Breast (CAB) is a prognostic test for early stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer patients, validated on Indian and Caucasian patients. The 21-gene signature Oncotype DX (ODX) is the most widely used commercially available breast cancer prognostic test. In the current study, risk stratification of CAB is compared with that done with ODX along with the respective outcomes of these patients.

METHODS

A cohort of 109 early stage breast cancer patients who had previously taken the ODX test were retested with CAB, and the results respectively compared with old cut-offs of ODX as well as cut-offs suggested by TAILORx, a prospective randomized trial of ODX. Distant metastasis-free survival after 5 years was taken as the end point.

RESULTS

CanAssist Breast stratified 83.5% of the cohort into low-risk and 16.5% into high-risk. With the TAILORx cut-offs, ODX stratified the cohort into 89.9% low-risk and 10.1% into high-risk. The low, intermediate, and high-risk groups with ODX old cut-offs were 62.4%, 31.2%, and 6.4%, respectively. The overall concordance of CAB with ODX using both cut-offs is 75%-76%, with ~82%-83% concordance in the low-risk category of these tests. The NPV of the low-risk category of CAB was 93.4%, and of ODX with TAILORx cut-offs was 91.8% and 89.7% with old cut-offs.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the concordance reported for other tests, CAB shows high concordance with ODX, and in addition shows comparable performance in the patient outcomes in this cohort. CAB is thus an excellent and cost-effective alternative to ODX.

Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer and its treatment can have an impact on health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests aim to identify whether or not women need chemotherapy owing to their risk of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tumour profiling tests oncotype DX^® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA), MammaPrint^® (Agendia, Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Prosigna^® (NanoString Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), EndoPredict^® (Myriad Genetics Ltd, London, UK) and immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC4). To develop a health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of these tests compared with clinical tools to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services.

DESIGN

A systematic review and health economic analysis were conducted.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review was partially an update of a 2013 review. Nine databases were searched in February 2017. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness in people with oestrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I or II cancer with zero to three positive lymph nodes. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model.

RESULTS

A total of 153 studies were identified. Only one completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice was identified: Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) for MammaPrint. Other studies suggest that all the tests can provide information on the risk of relapse; however, results were more varied in lymph node-positive (LN+) patients than in lymph node-negative (LN0) patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint can predict benefit from chemotherapy. The net change in the percentage of patients with a chemotherapy recommendation or decision pre/post test ranged from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 23% among UK studies and a decrease of 0% to 64% across European studies. The health economic analysis suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the tests versus current practice are broadly favourable for the following scenarios: (1) oncotype DX, for the LN0 subgroup with a Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) of > 3.4 and the one to three positive lymph nodes (LN1-3) subgroup (if a predictive benefit is assumed); (2) IHC4 plus clinical factors (IHC4+C), for all patient subgroups; (3) Prosigna, for the LN0 subgroup with a NPI of > 3.4 and the LN1-3 subgroup; (4) EndoPredict Clinical, for the LN1-3 subgroup only; and (5) MammaPrint, for no subgroups.

LIMITATIONS

There was only one completed RCT using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice. Except for oncotype DX in the LN0 group with a NPI score of > 3.4 (clinical intermediate risk), evidence surrounding pre- and post-test chemotherapy probabilities is subject to considerable uncertainty. There is uncertainty regarding whether or not oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. The MammaPrint analysis uses a different data source to the other four tests. The Translational substudy of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) study (used in the economic modelling) has a number of limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The review suggests that all the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Health economic analyses indicate that some tests may have a favourable cost-effectiveness profile for certain patient subgroups; all estimates are subject to uncertainty. More evidence is needed on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit, long-term impacts and changes in UK pre-/post-chemotherapy decisions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059561.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparison of six breast cancer classifiers using qPCR

MOTIVATION

Several gene expression-based risk scores and subtype classifiers for breast cancer were developed to distinguish high- and low-risk patients. Evaluating the performance of these classifiers helps to decide which classifiers should be used in clinical practice for personal therapeutic recommendations. So far, studies that compared multiple classifiers in large independent patient cohorts mostly used microarray measurements. qPCR-based classifiers were not included in the comparison or had to be adapted to the different experimental platforms.

RESULTS

We used a prospective study of 726 early breast cancer patients from seven certified German breast cancer centers. Patients were treated according to national guidelines and the expressions of 94 selected genes were measured by the mid-throughput qPCR platform Fluidigm. Clinical and pathological data including outcome over five years is available. Using these data, we could compare the performance of six classifiers (scmgene and research versions of PAM50, ROR-S, recurrence score, EndoPredict and GGI). Similar to other studies, we found a similar or even higher concordance between most of the classifiers and most were also able to differentiate high- and low-risk patients. The classifiers that were originally developed for microarray data still performed similarly using the Fluidigm data. Therefore, Fluidigm can be used to measure the gene expressions needed by several classifiers for a large cohort with little effort. In addition, we provide an interactive report of the results, which enables a transparent, in-depth comparison of classifiers and their prediction of individual patients.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

https://services.bio.ifi.lmu.de/pia/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Risk stratification in luminal-type breast cancer: Comparison of Ki-67 with EndoPredict test results

OBJECTIVES

Adjuvant chemotherapy decision in patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer (BC) is challenging. Ki-67 is widely used for adjuvant therapy decision in BC. The multigene assay EndoPredict (EP) has shown to provide valid and additional information about the risk of recurrence compared to traditional pathological factors. In this study, we compared Ki-67 with EP assay generated risk groups.

METHODS

We analyzed the results from prospective EP testing (n = 373) and tumor proliferation assessed by Ki-67 staining in luminal breast cancer. We statistically investigated the association of both parameters and probed for equivalence in risk stratification.

RESULTS

Evaluation of Ki-67 was feasible in 307 (82%) BC specimens with known EP test results. The EPscore (now called 12-gene molecular score) delineated 140 low and 167 high scores. After combining the EPscore with pathological tumor stage and nodal status, we received 203 EPclin low-risk and 104 EPclin high-risk classifications. EPscore and EPclin were significantly associated with Ki-67 indices and tumor grade (p < 0.001). Overall, we observed a moderate correlation between Ki-67 and the EPscore (r = 0.63) as well as the EPclin score (r = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

Ki-67 values above 25% partly overlap with EP test results and therefore indicate a high-risk profile. In these cases, the additional prognostic information from EP testing might be rather low. However, low and intermediate Ki-67 values (less than 25%) alone were not reliable in predicting a low risk EP profile, indicating that EP testing is useful in this subgroup.

Evaluation of the 12-Gene Molecular Score and the 21-Gene Recurrence Score as Predictors of Response to Neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer

Background

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NaCT) facilitates complete surgical resection in locally advanced breast cancer. Due to its association with improved outcome, complete pathologic response (pCR) to neo-adjuvant treatment has been accepted as a surrogate for long-term outcome in clinical trials of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, triple-negative, or luminal B breast cancer patients. In contrast, NaCT is effective in only ~ 7–10% of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative disease. Response biomarkers would enable such patients to be selected for NaCT.

Methods

Two commercially available breast cancer prognostic signatures [12-gene molecular score (MS) and the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS)] were compared in their ability to predict pCR to NaCT in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in six public RNA expression microarray data sets. Scores were approximated according to published algorithms and analyzed by logistic regression.

Results

Expression data were available for 764 ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer samples, including 59 patients with pCR. The two scores were well correlated. Either score was a significant predictor of pCR (12-gene MS p = 9.4 × 10⁻⁵; 21-gene RS p = 0.0041). However, in a model containing both scores, the 12-gene MS remained significant (p = 0.0079), while the 21-gene RS did not (p = 0.79).

Conclusions

In this microarray study, two commercial breast cancer prognostic scores were significant predictors of response to NaCT. In direct comparison, the 12-gene MS outperformed the 21-gene RS as a predictive marker for NaCT. Considering pCR as surrogate for improved survival, these results support the ability of both scores to predict chemotherapy sensitivity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-019-08039-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decision of Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in HR+ HER2- Early Invasive Breast Cancer: Which Biomarkers Could Help?

The decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy in treatment of early invasive breast cancer (EBC) is often complex, particularly for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) diseases, and current guidelines often classify these patients in an intermediate-risk group. Several biomarkers are currently available in this indication, in order to obtain additional and more accurate prognostic information compared to classic clinicopathological characteristics and guide the indication of adjuvant chemotherapy, optimizing the efficacy/toxicity ratio. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the clinical validity and clinical utility of five biomarkers (uPA/PAI-1, OncotypeDX^®, MammaPrint^®, PAM50, and EndoPredict^®) in HR+/HER2- EBC, whatever the nodal status. A total of 89 studies met the inclusion criteria. Even though data currently available confirm the clinical validity of these biomarkers, there is a lack of data regarding clinical utility for most of them. Prospective studies in well-defined populations are needed to integrate these biomarkers in a decision strategy.

Comparison of GenesWell BCT Score With Oncotype DX Recurrence Score for Risk Classification in Asian Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer

Introduction: The GenesWell Breast Cancer Test (BCT) is a recently developed multigene assay that predicts the risk of distant recurrence in patients with early breast cancer. Here, we analyzed the concordance of the BCT score with the Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) for risk stratification in Asian patients with pN0-N1, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer.

Methods: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissues previously analyzed using the Oncotype DX test were assessed using the GenesWell BCT test. The risk stratification by the two tests was then compared.

Results: A total of 771 patients from five institutions in Korea were analyzed. According to the BCT score, 527 (68.4%) patients were classified as low risk, and 244 (31.6%) as high risk. Meanwhile, 134 (17.4%), 516 (66.9%), and 121 (15.7%) patients were categorized into the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively, according to the RS ranges used in the TAILORx. The BCT high-risk group was significantly associated with advanced lymph node status, whereas no association between RS risk groups and nodal status was observed. The concordance between the two risk stratification methods in the overall population was 71.9% when the RS low-risk, and intermediate-risk groups were combined into one group. However, poor concordance was observed in patients aged ≤50 years and in those with lymph node-positive breast cancer.

Conclusions: The concordance between the BCT score and RS was low in women aged ≤50 years or with lymph node-positive breast cancer. Further studies are necessary to identify more accurate tests for predicting prognosis and chemotherapy benefit in this subpopulation.

Characterization of molecular scores and gene expression signatures in primary breast cancer, local recurrences and brain metastases

Background

Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in women worldwide. Despite extensive studies in all areas of basic, clinical and applied research, accurate prognosis remains elusive, thus leading to overtreatment of many patients. Diagnosis could be improved by introducing multigene molecular scores in standard clinical practice. Several tests that work with formalin-fixed tissue have become routine. Molecular scores usually include several genes representing processes, response to oestrogens, progestogens and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2), respectively, which are combined additively in single values. These multi-gene scores have the advantage of being more robust and reproducible than single-gene scores. Their utility may be further enhanced by combining them with classical diagnostic parameters. Here, we present an exploratory study comparing the RISK and research versions of Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS), Prosigna Risk of Recurrence (ROR) and EndoPredict (EP) with respect to their prognostic potential for ipsilateral recurrence and/or distant relapse in brain, and we compared the scores to the intrinsic subtypes based on PAM50.

Methods

RNA was extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue cores of primary tumours, local recurrences and brain metastases. Gene expression was measured on a NanoString nCounter Analysis System. Intrinsic subtypes and molecular scores were computed according to published literature and RISK, RS, ROR and EP were compared against each other and to the intrinsic subtypes Luminal A (lumA), Luminal B (lumB), Her2-enriched (Her2↑), Basal-like (basal), and Normal-like (normal) of PAM50. Local recurrences and brain metastases were compared to their corresponding primary tumours.

Results

All four molecular scores were highly correlated. Highest correlations were observed among genes related to proliferation while lower correlations were found among oestrogen-related genes. The scores were significantly higher in primary tumours progressing to brain metastases as compared to recurrence-free primary tumours and primary tumours that relapsed as local recurrences.

Conclusions

RISK and ROR-P are prognostic for primary tumours metastasizing to the brain. All four scores, RISK, RS, EP and ROR-P failed to discriminate between primary tumours that remained recurrence-free and primary tumours relapsing as local recurrences.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5752-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Pathology-Based Combined Model to Identify PAM50 Non-luminal Intrinsic Disease in Hormone Receptor-Positive HER2-Negative Breast Cancer

Background: In hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative breast cancer, the HER2-enriched and Basal-like intrinsic subtypes are associated with poor outcome, low response to anti-estrogen therapy and high response to chemotherapy. To date, no validated biomarker exists to identify both molecular entities other than gene expression.

Methods: PAM50 subtyping and immunohistochemical data were obtained from 8 independent studies of 1,416 HR+/HER2-negative early breast tumors. A non-luminal disease score (NOLUS) from 0 to 100, based on percentage of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki67 tumor cells, was derived in a combined cohort of 5 studies (training dataset) and tested in a combined cohort of 3 studies. The performance of NOLUS was estimated using Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC).

Results: In the training dataset (n = 903) and compared to luminal disease, non-luminal disease had lower percentage of ER-positive cells (median 65.2 vs. 86.2%, p < 0.01) and PR-positive cells (33.2 vs. 56.4%, p < 0.01) and higher percentage of Ki67-positive cells (18.2 vs. 13.1%, p = 0.01). A NOLUS formula was derived: −0.45^*ER −0.28^*PR +0.27^*Ki67 + 73.02. The proportion of non-luminal tumors in NOLUS-positive (≥51.38) and NOLUS-negative (<51.38) groups was 52.6 and 8.7%, respectively. In the testing dataset (n = 514), NOLUS was found significantly associated with non-luminal disease (p < 0.01) with an AUC 0.902. The proportion of non-luminal tumors in NOLUS-positive and NOLUS-negative groups was 76.9% (56.4–91.0%) and 2.6% (1.4–4.5%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the pre-specified cutoff was 59.3 and 98.7%, respectively.

Conclusions: In the absence of gene expression data, NOLUS can help identify non-luminal disease within HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer.

Efficacy of an RNA-based multigene assay with core needle biopsy samples for risk evaluation in hormone-positive early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Gene expression profiling provides key information for prognosis of breast cancer to establish treatment strategy. However, the genetic assessment should be available before induction of treatment to be useful for clinical practice. To evaluate the reliability of using needle biopsy samples for gene assays, we compared gene-expression profiling results between core needle biopsy (CNB) samples and surgical specimens in breast cancer.

METHODS

Thirty-one paired, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded CNB and surgical specimen samples were selected from patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Total RNA was extracted from the samples and the risk classifications based on GenesWell BCT scores were compared.

RESULTS

The BCT scores correlated between CNB samples and surgical specimens of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (Pearson r = 0.66). The overall concordance rate of risk classification (high/low risk) was 83.9%. However, when the breast cancer does not contain intratumoral microcalcification, the concordance rate increased as 92.0%. And, when the breast cancer formed a solitary nodule (non-multifocal), the concordance rate increased up to 95.8%.

CONCLUSION

Risk classification using the GenesWell BCT multigene kit with CNB samples could be considered reliable, when the breast cancer is a solitary nodule without intratumoral microcalcification. Such genetic profiling results should be helpful for establishing a treatment plan for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer before treatment induction.

Summary of head-to-head comparisons of patient risk classifications by the 21-gene Recurrence Score® (RS) assay and other genomic assays for early breast cancer

Many genomic assays that assess recurrence risk in early breast cancer (EBC) are prognostic, but they differ in risk group stratification, which can affect clinical utility. Prospective outcomes of >60 K patients treated based on the 21-gene assay results have shown that chemotherapy may be safely omitted in EBC patents with low Recurrence Score (RS) results (RS < 18). Because of its extensive validation and wide clinical use, the RS assay is a common comparator in head-to-head studies with other assays. Published/presented studies of the RS assay performed on the same tumor samples with Breast Cancer Index (BCI), EndoPredict (EP) or EP+ clinical features (EPclin), MammaPrint (MMP) and/or Prosigna (ROR) assays were reviewed. Study findings were summarized descriptively.

Gene expression assay and Watson for Oncology for optimization of treatment in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Personalized treatment for cancer patients is a hot topic of debate, particularly the decision to initiate chemotherapy in patients with Estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative tumors in the early stages of breast cancer (BC). Owing to significant advancements in information technology (IT) and genomics, clinicians are increasingly attaining therapeutic goals rapidly and safely by effectively differentiating patient subsets that require chemotherapy. IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) is a cognitive computing system employed by clinicians to provide evidence-based treatment options for cancer. WFO aids in clinical diagnosis, with claims that it may be superior in performance to human clinicians. The current study was based on the hypothesis that WFO alone cannot effectively determine whether or not chemotherapy is essential for the subset of ER-positive, HER2-negative BC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 2015 to July 2017, 95 patients with ER-positive, HER2- negative BC subjected to treatment were retrospectively examined using WFO, and outputs compared to real clinical practice. Treatment options were suggested by WFO, and WFO recommendations calculated both with and without data from the gene expression assay (GEA).

RESULTS

WFO without GEA was unable to determine the groups of patients that did not require chemotherapy. Concordant therapeutic recommendations between real clinical practice and WFO without GEA were obtained for 23.2% of the patient group. On the other hand, the results of WFO with GEA showed good clinical applicability. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of WFO with GEA were 100%, 80%, 61% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our collective findings indicate that WFO without the gene expression assay has limited clinical utility.

Molecular Classification of Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, observed traditionally by morphology and protein expression but, more recently with the advent of modern molecular technologies, at the genomic and transcriptomic level. This review describes the association between the different molecular subtypes with the histologic subtypes of breast cancer alongside some of their major genomic characteristics and illustrates how these subtypes may affect the appearance of tumors on imaging studies. The authors aim to show how molecular stratification can be used to augment traditional methods to improve our understanding of breast cancers and their clinical management.

Clinical implications of the non-luminal intrinsic subtypes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer

Gene expression profiling has had a considerable impact on our understanding ofbreastcancer biology. Duringthelast decade, 4 intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-enriched [HER2-E] and Basal-like) have been identified and intensively studied. In this article, we review and discuss the clinical implications of the 2 non-luminal subtypes (i.e. HER2-E and Basal-like) identified within hormone receptor (HR)-positive disease. After reviewing 32 studies for a total of 13,091 samples, ∼8% and ∼ 15% of early and metastatic HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer, respectively, were found to be non-luminal. Clinically, HR+/HER2-negative/non-luminal subtypes have been associated with estrogen independence, chemo-sensitivity, resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition and poor outcome. Interestingly, EGFR/HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibition might be of value in the HR+/HER2-negative/HER2-E subtype. Finally, the HER2-E subtype within HR+/HER2 + disease represents ∼ 30% and has been associated with anti-HER2 sensitivity, chemo-sensitivity and resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition. In the upcoming years, retrospective and prospective clinical trials evaluating both biomarkers should lead to improvements in patient outcomes.

Gene expression profiling in prognosis of distant recurrence in HR-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer patients

There had been several studies using gene-expression profiling in predicting distant recurrence in breast cancer. In this study, we developed an 18-gene classifier (18-GC) to predict distant recurrence of breast cancer and compared it with the 21-gene panel (Oncotype DX^®, ODx) in performance. Included were 224 breast cancer patients with positive hormonal receptor (HR+) and negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-). We compared the demographic, clinical, and survival information of the patients, and further compared the prediction of recurrence risk obtained by using the 18-GC with that by ODx. To have the best combined sensitivity and specificity, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the cutoff values for several breakpoint scores. For the new 18-GC, a breakpoint score of 21 was adopted to produce a combined highest sensitivity (95%) and specificity (39%) in detecting distant recurrence. At this breakpoint score, 164 of the 224 patients were classified by the 18-GC in the same risk level as by ODx, giving a concordance rate of 73%. Along with patient age and tumor stage, this 18-GC was found to be an independent significant prognostic factor of distant metastasis of breast cancer. We have thus created a new gene panel assay for prediction of distant recurrence in HR+ and HER2- breast cancer patients. With a high concordance rate with ODx, this new assay may serve as a good tool for individual breast cancer patients to make an informed decision on whether adjuvant chemotherapy should be performed post-surgery.

Spotlight on the utility of the Oncotype DX® breast cancer assay

The Oncotype DX^® assay was developed to address the need for optimizing the selection of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, lymph node-negative breast cancer. It has ushered in the era of genomic-based personalized cancer care for ER-positive primary breast cancer and is now widely utilized in various parts of the world. Together with several other genomic assays, Oncotype DX has been incorporated into clinical practice guidelines on biomarker use to guide treatment decisions. The Oncotype DX result is presented as the recurrence score which is a continuous score that predicts the risk of distant disease recurrence. The assay, which provides information on clinicopathological factors, has been validated for use in the prognostication and prediction of degree of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative early breast cancers. Clinical studies have consistently shown that the Oncotype DX has a significant impact on decision making in adjuvant therapy recommendations and appears to be cost-effective in diverse health care settings. In this article, we provide an overview of the validation and clinical impact studies for the Oncotype DX assay. We also discuss its potential use in the neoadjuvant setting, as well as the more recent prospective validation trials, and the economic and utility implications of studies that use a lower cutoff score to define low-risk disease.

Markers of clinical utility in the differential diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer

Molecular diagnostics is a rapidly evolving area of surgical pathology, that is gradually beginning to transform our diagnostical procedures for a variety of tumors. Next to molecular prognostication that has begun to complement our histological diagnosis in breast cancer, additional testing to detect targets and to predict therapy response has become common practice in breast and lung cancer. Prostate cancer is a bit slower in this respect, as it is still largely diagnosed and classified on morphological grounds. Our diagnostic immunohistochemical armamentarium of basal cell markers and positive markers of malignancy now allows to clarify the majority of lesions, if applied to the appropriate morphological context (and step sections). Prognostic immunohistochemistry remains a problematic and erratic yet tempting research field that provides information on tumor relevance of proteins, but little hard data to integrate into our diagnostic workflow. Main reasons are various issues of standardization that hamper the reproducibility of cut-off values to delineate risk categories. Molecular testing of DNA-methylation or transcript profiling may be much better standardized and this review discusses a couple of commercially available tests: The ConfirmDX test measures DNA-methylation to estimate the likelihood of cancer detection on a repeat biopsy and may help to reduce unnecessary biopsies. The tests Prolaris, OncotypeDX Prostate, and Decipher all are transcript tests that have shown to provide prognostic data independent of clinico-pathological parameters and that may aid in therapy planning. However, further validation and more comparative studies will be needed to clarify the many open questions concerning sampling bias and tumor heterogeneity.

Budget impact analysis of gene expression tests to aid therapy decisions for breast cancer patients in Germany

OBJECTIVES

Many women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer may not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Gene expression tests can reduce chemotherapy over- and undertreatment by providing prognostic information on the likelihood of recurrence and, with Oncotype DX, predictive information on chemotherapy benefit. These tests are currently not reimbursed by German healthcare payers. An analysis was conducted to evaluate the budget impact of gene expression tests in Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Costs of gene expression tests and medical and non-medical costs associated with treatment were assessed from healthcare payer and societal perspectives. Costs were estimated from data collected at a university hospital and were combined with decision impact data for Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna and EndoPredict (EPclin). Changes in chemotherapy use and budget impact were evaluated over 1 year for 20,000 women.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy was associated with substantial annual costs of EUR 19,003 and EUR 84,412 per therapy from the healthcare payer and societal perspective, respectively. Compared with standard care, only Oncotype DX was associated with cost savings to healthcare payers and society (EUR 5.9 million and EUR 253 million, respectively). Scenario analysis showed that both women at high clinical but low genomic risk and low clinical but high genomic risk were important contributors to costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncotype DX was the only gene expression test that was estimated to reduce costs versus standard care in Germany. The reimbursement of Oncotype DX testing in standard clinical practice in Germany should be considered.

Systematic review of the clinical and economic value of gene expression profiles for invasive early breast cancer available in Europe

Gene expression profiles with prognostic capacities have shown good performance in multiple clinical trials. However, with multiple assays available and numerous types of validation studies performed, the added value for daily clinical practice is still unclear. In Europe, the MammaPrint, OncotypeDX, PAM50/Prosigna and Endopredict assays are commercially available. In this systematic review, we aim to assess these assays on four important criteria: Assay development and methodology, clinical validation, clinical utility and economic value. We performed a literature search covering PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane, for studies related to one or more of the four selected assays. We identified 147 papers for inclusion in this review. MammaPrint and OncotypeDX both have evidence available, including level IA clinical trial results for both assays. Both assays provide prognostic information. Predictive value has only been shown for OncotypeDX. In the clinical utility studies, a higher reduction in chemotherapy was achieved by OncotypeDX, although the number of available studies differ considerably between tests. On average, economic evaluations estimate that genomic testing results in a moderate increase in total costs, but that these costs are acceptable in relation to the expected improved patient outcome. PAM50/prosigna and EndoPredict showed comparable prognostic capacities, but with less economical and clinical utility studies. Furthermore, for these assays no level IA trial data are available yet. In summary, all assays have shown excellent prognostic capacities. The differences in the quantity and quality of evidence are discussed. Future studies shall focus on the selection of appropriate subgroups for testing and long-term outcome of validation trials, in order to determine the place of these assays in daily clinical practice.

Clinical utility of multigene profiling assays in early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

This clinical practice guideline was developed to determine the level of evidence supporting the clinical utility of commercially available multigene profiling assays and to provide guidance about whether certain breast cancer patient populations in Ontario would benefit from alternative tests in addition to Oncotype dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.).

METHODS

A systematic electronic Ovid search of the medline and embase databases sought out systematic reviews and primary literature. A systematic review and practice guideline was written by a working group and was then reviewed and approved by Cancer Care Ontario's Molecular Oncology Advisory Committee.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies assessing the clinical utility of Oncotype dx, Prosigna (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.), EndoPredict (Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, U.S.A.), and MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.) were included in the evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical utility of multigene profiling assays is currently established for an appropriate subset of patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative, node-negative breast cancer for whom a decision to give chemotherapy is difficult to make. For patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumours who receive tamoxifen alone, Oncotype dx, Prosigna, and EndoPredict validly identify a low-risk population with favourable outcomes, indicating that a low-risk assay result is actionable and the decision to withhold chemotherapy is supported. Clinical evidence indicates that a high Oncotype dx recurrence score can predict for chemotherapy benefit, but a high Prosigna or EndoPredict score, although prognostic, is not, based on clinical trial evidence, directly actionable. Prosigna and EndoPredict are statistically more likely to identify a population at risk for recurrence beyond 5 years, but that information is currently not actionable because of a lack of interventional studies.

Correlating Ki67 and other prognostic markers with Oncotype DX recurrence score in early estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer

AIM

Decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer are complex. Ki67 is increasingly used, in conjunction with conventional prognostic markers, to help decide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Ki67 has been proposed as an economical alternative to Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS), which is a validated prognostic marker for disease recurrence and predictive marker for benefit from chemotherapy. This study aimed to determine in patients where conventional prognostic markers did not provide a clear recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy, whether Ki67 could be a substitute for RS.

METHODS

We reviewed all cases of luminal-type node-negative early breast cancer (T1-2, N0-1mi, M0, estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative) referred for Oncotype DX testing by the multidisciplinary team at an Australian tertiary private hospital from 14th December 2006 to 31st December 2013, when conventional prognostic markers did not provide a clear recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy. RS was correlated with Ki67, along with other conventional prognostic markers including tumor size, grade, mitotic rate and lymphovascular invasion. Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) were used for ordinal and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were analyzed, median Ki67 was 15% (range 2-50%) and the median RS was 16 (range 3-65). There was no positive correlation between Ki67 and RS (r = 0.01, P = 0.93). No single conventional prognostic marker was shown to significantly correlate with RS, including tumor size (r = -0.02, P = 0.88), grade (r = 0.10, P = 0.44), mitotic rate (r = -0.07, P = 0.69) and lymphovascular invasion (r = -0.12, P = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

Ki67 and conventional prognostic markers do not correlate with Oncotype DX RS. In the setting where conventional prognostic markers do not show a clear indication for or against adjuvant chemotherapy as determined by consensus in a multidisciplinary team, Ki67 is not a substitute for Oncotype DX testing. RS may provide additional information to aid decision making for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Comparison of risk classification between EndoPredict and MammaPrint in ER-positive/HER2-negative primary invasive breast cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the concordance in risk classification between the EndoPredict and the MammaPrint scores obtained for the same cancer samples on 40 estrogen-receptor positive/HER2-negative breast carcinomas.

METHODS

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded invasive breast carcinoma tissues that were previously analyzed with MammaPrint as part of routine care of the patients, and were classified as high-risk (20 patients) and low-risk (20 patients), were selected to be analyzed by the EndoPredict assay, a second generation gene expression test that combines expression of 8 genes (EP score) with two clinicopathological variables (tumor size and nodal status, EPclin score).

RESULTS

The EP score classified 15 patients as low-risk and 25 patients as high-risk. EPclin re-classified 5 of the 25 EP high-risk patients into low-risk, resulting in a total of 20 high-risk and 20 low-risk tumors. EP score and MammaPrint score were significantly correlated (p = 0.008). Twelve of 20 samples classified as low-risk by MammaPrint were also low-risk by EP score (60%). 17 of 20 MammaPrint high-risk tumors were also high-risk by EP score. The overall concordance between EP score and MammaPrint was 72.5% (κ = 0.45, (95% CI, 0.182 to 0.718)). EPclin score also correlated with MammaPrint results (p = 0.004). Discrepancies between both tests occurred in 10 cases: 5 MammaPrint low-risk patients were classified as EPclin high-risk and 5 high-risk MammaPrint were classified as low-risk by EPclin and overall concordance of 75% (κ = 0.5, (95% CI, 0.232 to 0.768)).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates a limited concordance between MammaPrint and EndoPredict. Differences in results could be explained by the inclusion of different gene sets in each platform, the use of different methodology, and the inclusion of clinicopathological parameters, such as tumor size and nodal status, in the EndoPredict test.

Decision impact and feasibility of different ASCO-recommended biomarkers in early breast cancer: Prospective comparison of molecular marker EndoPredict and protein marker uPA/PAI-1

Background

Adjuvant therapy decisions in early breast cancer are based on accurate risk assessment. Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and plaminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) have been the first biomarkers in hormone receptor (HR) positive breast cancer to reach highest level of evidence. The EndoPredict test (EPclin) combines gene expression information with nodal status and tumor size. The aim of this prospective study was to compare uPA/PAI-1 and EPclin as prognostic biomarkers with regard to feasibility, risk stratification and impact on adjuvant therapy recommendation.

Materials and method

395 patients with HR positive, HER2 negative, intermediate risk breast cancer were enrolled. Relations and concordance of histologic grading as well as EPclin and uPA/PAI-1 values were assessed by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and Cohen’s Kappa. To compare decision impact of EPclin and uPA/PAI-1 three independent case discussions were held: One with known uPA/PAI-1 and EPclin results, one blinded to EPclin alone and another one blinded to both EPclin and uPA/PAI-1.

Results

EPclin could be determined in all 395 (100%), uPA/PAI-1 in 190 (48%) of the tumor samples. EPclin allocated 250 patients (63%) to the low-risk group and 145 patients (37%) to the high-risk group, whereas uPA/PAI-1 allocated 88 patients (46%) to the low-risk group and 102 patients (54%) to the high-risk group. In 59% of cases, both tests showed concordant results. EPclin resulted more frequently in a change of therapy recommendation than the uPA/PAI-1 test (46% vs 24%). Recommendation of adjuvant chemotherapy (CTX) was abandoned twice as often by EPclin (45%) compared to uPA/PAI-1 (22%).

Conclusion

In this first prospective comparison of EPclin and uPA/PAI-1 we found, that EPclin is superior to uPA/PAI-1 with respect to feasibility and decision impact. This leads to substantial avoidance of adjuvant CTX in endocrine-sensitive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Data collection for patients´ clinical outcome is ongoing.

MammaPrint versus EndoPredict: Poor correlation in disease recurrence risk classification of hormone receptor positive breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Correct risk assessment of disease recurrence in patients with early breast cancer is critically important to detect patients who may be spared adjuvant chemotherapy. In clinical practice this is increasingly done based on the results of gene expression assays. In the present study we compared the concordance of the 70-gene signature MammaPrint (MP) with the 12 gene assay EndoPredict (EP).

METHODS

Representative tissue of 48 primary tumours was analysed with the MP during routine diagnostic purposes. Corresponding formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was thereafter analysed by the EP test. Risk categories of both tests were compared.

RESULTS

41 of 48 tumours could be directly compared by both tests. Of the 17 MP low risk cases, only 9 were considered low risk by EP (53% agreement) and of the 24 MP high risk cases, 18 were high risk by EP (75% agreement). Discrepancies occurred in 14 of 41 cases (34.1%). There was only a weak and non-significant correlation between the MP and EP test with an overall concordance of only 66%. The original therapeutic recommendation was based on the MP and would have been changed in 38% of the patients following EP test results. 4 patients developed distant metastases. The respective tumours of these patients were all classified as high risk by the EP, but only 3 were classified as high risk by the MP.

CONCLUSION

Both tests resulted in different treatment recommendations for a significant proportion of patients and cannot be used interchangeably. The results underscore the urgent need for further comparative analyses of multi-genomic tests to avoid misclassification of disease recurrence risk in breast cancer patients.

Clinical evidence supporting genomic tests in early breast cancer: Do all genomic tests provide the same information?

Breast cancer (BC) has historically been treated as a single disease entity; however, in the last decade, insights into its molecular heterogeneity have underpinned the development/commercialisation of several genomic tools whose goal is to guide patient management in early BC. These include the Oncotype DX^® Breast Recurrence Score™ assay, MammaPrint^®, Prosigna^®, and EndoPredict^®. Although these assays are similar in that they are all multigene assays reflecting risk of recurrence, they differ substantially in the technological platform used to measure gene expression; the number and identity of genes assessed; the patient populations used for development and validation; and the level of evidence supporting clinical utility. They also differ in the amount of evidence demonstrating their impact on treatment decisions and cost effectiveness in different countries. This review discusses these 4 assays, highlighting the clinical evidence that supports each of them, while focussing on the Recurrence Score assay. This assay has the greatest body of evidence supporting its clinical utility and decision impact/effectiveness, and currently is the only one validated as a predictor of response to adjuvant chemotherapy in hormone-receptor positive early BC patients treated with endocrine therapy and to be included as such in international/national BC treatment guidelines. The review also discusses ongoing prospective trials investigating the 4 assays, recent outcome studies, as well as analyses comparing different assays on the same tumour blocks.

[Molecular pathology for breast cancer: Importance of the gene expression profile]

Gene expression arrays are currently used to guide therapy decisions in breast cancer. The indications for gene expression tests are especially important in the group of hormone receptor negative, HER2 positive tumors to decide whether endocrine therapy alone is sufficient or additional chemotherapy is necessary. In this group of luminal tumors conventional clinicopathological parameters are often not suitable to select patients who would benefit from an endocrine therapy alone. Gene expression tests can provide additional information and, therefore, support decision-making and avoid unnecessary chemotherapy. There are a variety of test systems available which poses the questions of which tests should be selected for which patients and how the test results should be evaluated in a direct comparison. This report provides information about three currently available gene expression tests (i.e. OncotypeDx®, Endopredict® and PAM50/Prosigna®), comments on similarities and differences and discusses the impact on therapy decisions. The focus of this article is on a discussion of clinical studies that have compared the different molecular tests in the same clinical study cohort. These investigations allow a first comparative evaluation of the various assays for breast cancer.

Indications for prognostic gene expression profiling in early breast cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. While breast cancer mortality has dropped substantially over the past three decades due to early detection and adjuvant systemic therapy (AST), the risk of recurrence is highly dependent upon numerous factors including tumor size, involvement of regional lymph nodes, histologic grade, expression of hormone receptors (estrogen and progesterone), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification. We use these factors to determine which early breast cancer (EBC) patients should be treated with AST, including endocrine therapy (ET), chemotherapy, and HER2-directed treatments. While these factors aid in this determination, it remains challenging to identify those patients unlikely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, resulting in over-treatment of patients. Given this dilemma, there has been great interest in the development of prognostic and predictive gene expression profiles. The most extensively studied profile, the 21-gene recurrence score (Oncotype Dx®), estimates 10-year risk of breast cancer recurrence in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative EBC and is likely predictive of chemotherapy benefit. This assay has established analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility for this patient group and, therefore, is indicated in this patient population to help inform decisions regarding administration of adjuvant chemotherapy. Several other assays may have utility in this clinical context or perhaps to identify patients who do not require extended adjuvant ET. These assays include the following: PAM 50 Risk of Recurrence (ROR) Score (Prosigna™), Breast Cancer Index, and EndoPredict®.

A Prospective Comparison of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score and the PAM50-Based Prosigna in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The 21-gene Recurrence Score(®) assay (Oncotype DX(®), Genomic Health, Inc.) is a validated predictor of recurrence risk/chemotherapy benefit in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) early-stage breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy. The Prosigna(®) assay (NanoString Technologies Inc.) is a validated prognosticator in postmenopausal patients with low-risk ER+ early-stage breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy. The assays were analytically/clinically developed and validated differently. This study focused on comparing recurrence risk estimates as determined by these assays and is the first blinded comparison of these assays on matched patient samples.

METHODS

Sequential breast cancer specimens from postmenopausal, node-negative, ER+ patients treated at the Marin General Hospital were analyzed: first by the 21-gene assay then by the Prosigna assay in an independent lab blinded to the Recurrence Score results.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 52 patients. Correlation between the Recurrence Score and the Prosigna assay results was poor (r = 0.08). Agreement between risk classifications based on these assays was 54%; 4/7 of patients classified as high risk by the Prosigna assay had low Recurrence Score results. Two tumors with high Recurrence Score results had low ER expression (close to positivity threshold); both of which had a low/intermediate Prosigna assay result. The Prosigna assay classified 73.1% and 23.1% of samples as luminal A and luminal B, respectively. A range of Recurrence Score results was observed within the subtypes; 83% of luminal B samples had a low Recurrence Score result.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with prior comparisons between the 21-gene and other genomic assays, our study demonstrated substantial differences in the way patients are risk stratified, suggesting that the different assays are not interchangeable.

FUNDING

Genomic Health, Inc.

Standardization for Ki-67 assessment in moderately differentiated breast cancer. A retrospective analysis of the SAKK 28/12 study

Background

Proliferative activity (Ki-67 Labelling Index) in breast cancer increasingly serves as an additional tool in the decision for or against adjuvant chemotherapy in midrange hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Ki-67 Index has been previously shown to suffer from high inter-observer variability especially in midrange (G2) breast carcinomas. In this study we conducted a systematic approach using different Ki-67 assessments on large tissue sections in order to identify the method with the highest reliability and the lowest variability.

Materials and Methods

Five breast pathologists retrospectively analyzed proliferative activity of 50 G2 invasive breast carcinomas using large tissue sections by assessing Ki-67 immunohistochemistry. Ki-67-assessments were done on light microscopy and on digital images following these methods: 1) assessing five regions, 2) assessing only darkly stained nuclei and 3) considering only condensed proliferative areas (‘hotspots’). An individual review (the first described assessment from 2008) was also performed. The assessments on light microscopy were done by estimating. All measurements were performed three times. Inter-observer and intra-observer reliabilities were calculated using the approach proposed by Eliasziw et al. Clinical cutoffs (14% and 20%) were tested using Fleiss’ Kappa.

Results

There was a good intra-observer reliability in 5 of 7 methods (ICC: 0.76–0.89). The two highest inter-observer reliability was fair to moderate (ICC: 0.71 and 0.74) in 2 methods (region-analysis and individual-review) on light microscopy. Fleiss’-kappa-values (14% cut-off) were the highest (moderate) using the original recommendation on light-microscope (Kappa 0.58). Fleiss’ kappa values (20% cut-off) were the highest (Kappa 0.48 each) in analyzing hotspots on light-microscopy and digital-analysis. No methodologies using digital-analysis were superior to the methods on light microscope.

Conclusion

Our results show that all methods on light-microscopy for Ki-67 assessment in large tissue sections resulted in a good intra-observer reliability. Region analysis and individual review (the original recommendation) on light-microscopy yielded the highest inter-observer reliability. These results show slight improvement to previously published data on poor-reproducibility and thus might be a practical-pragmatic way for routine assessment of Ki-67 Index in G2 breast carcinomas.

Molecular diagnostic testing in breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

An overview of molecular tests used in the treatment of breast cancer, organized by stage and clinical condition.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review of scientific literature, guideline recommendations, and data published by test manufacturers.

CONCLUSION

Several molecular tests that analyze expression of cancer-related genes have been validated in clinical trials and are recommended by clinical practice guidelines to inform diagnosis and treatment decisions for personalized interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Molecular testing has become an important part of patient care for those with breast cancer. Oncology nurses must understand this methodology to prescribe tests, interpret the results, and provide guidance to patients.

How does genome sequencing impact surgery?

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Great efforts are dedicated to the development of prognostic and predictive biomarkers to improve diagnosis and achieve optimal treatment selection, thereby, introducing precision medicine in the multimodality treatment of cancer. Genomic aberrations are the basis of tumour development, representing excellent candidates for the development of promising clinical biomarkers. Over the past decade, single-gene mutations and genomic profiling have been increasingly used in multidisciplinary consultations for risk-assessment and treatment planning for patients with cancer. We discuss the impact of such genetic-based information on surgical decision-making. Single-gene mutations have already influenced surgical decision-making in breast, colorectal and thyroid cancer. However, the direct impact of genomic profiling on surgical care has not yet been fully established. We discuss the direct and indirect influences of genomic profiling on surgery, and analyse the limitations and unresolved issues of a genotypic-approach to the surgical management of cancer.

Multi-level gene expression signatures, but not binary, outperform Ki67 for the long term prognostication of breast cancer patients

Proliferation-related gene signatures have been proposed to aid breast cancer management by providing reproducible prognostic and predictive information on a patient-by-patient basis. It is unclear however, whether a less demanding assessment of cell division rate (as determined in clinical setting by expression of Ki67) can function in place of gene profiling. We investigated agreement between literature-, distribution-based, as well as signature-derived values for Ki67, relative to the genomic grade index (GGI), 70-gene signature, p53 signature, recurrence score (RS), and the molecular subtype models of Sorlie, Hu, and Parker in representative sets of 253 and 159 breast cancers with a median follow-up of 13 and 14.5 years, respectively. The relevance for breast cancer specific survival was also addressed in uni- and bivariate Cox models. Taking both cohorts into account, our broad approach identified ROC optimized Ki67 cutoffs in the range of 8-28%. With optimum signature-reproducing cutoffs, similarity in classification of individual tumors was higher for binary signatures (72-85%), than multi-level signatures (67-73%). Consistent with strong agreement, no prognostic superiority was noted for either Ki67 or the binary GGI, 70-gene and p53 signatures in the Uppsala dataset by bivariate analyses. In contrast, Ki67-independent prognostic capacity could be demonstrated for RS and molecular subtypes according to Sorlie, Hu and Parker in both datasets. Our results show that the added prognostic value of binary proliferation-related gene signatures is limited for Ki67-assessed breast cancers. More complex, multi-level descriptions have a greater potential in short- and long-term prognostication for biologically relevant breast cancer subgroups.

Genomic profiling in luminal breast cancer

The developments in gene expression analysis have made it possible to sub-classify hormone receptor-positive (luminal) breast cancer in different prognostic subgroups. This sub-classification is currently used in clinical routine as prognostic signature (e.g. 21-gene Onoctype DX®, 70-gene Mammaprint®). As yet, the optimal method for sub-classification has not been defined. Moreover, there is no evidence from prospective trials. This review explores widely used genomic signatures in luminal breast cancer, making a critical appraisal of evidence from retrospective/prospective trials. It is based on systematic literature search performed using Medline (accessed September 2013) and abstracts presented at the Annual Meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Multigene Assays for Classification, Prognosis, and Prediction in Breast Cancer: a Critical Review on the Background and Clinical Utility

Gene signatures which are based on multigene profiling assays have been developed for the purpose to better define the prognosis and prediction of therapy results in early-stage breast cancer. These assays were designed to be more specific than conventional clinico-pathologic parameters in the selection of patients for (neo-)adjuvant treatment and in effect help to avoid unnecessary cytotoxic treatment. In this review we describe molecular risk scores, for which tests are commercially available (PAM50®, MammaTyper®, MammaPrint®, Oncotype DX®, Endopredict®, Genomic Grade Index®) and IHC risk scores (Mammostrat® and IHC4), and discuss the current evidence of their clinical use.

From High-Throughput Microarray-Based Screening to Clinical Application: The Development of a Second Generation Multigene Test for Breast Cancer Prognosis

Several multigene tests have been developed for breast cancer patients to predict the individual risk of recurrence. Most of the first generation tests rely on proliferation-associated genes and are commonly carried out in central reference laboratories. Here, we describe the development of a second generation multigene assay, the EndoPredict test, a prognostic multigene expression test for estrogen receptor (ER) positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) negative (ER+/HER2−) breast cancer patients. The EndoPredict gene signature was initially established in a large high-throughput microarray-based screening study. The key steps for biomarker identification are discussed in detail, in comparison to the establishment of other multigene signatures. After biomarker selection, genes and algorithms were transferred to a diagnostic platform (reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)) to allow for assaying formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. A comprehensive analytical validation was performed and a prospective proficiency testing study with seven pathological laboratories finally proved that EndoPredict can be reliably used in the decentralized setting. Three independent large clinical validation studies (n = 2,257) demonstrated that EndoPredict offers independent prognostic information beyond current clinicopathological parameters and clinical guidelines. The review article summarizes several important steps that should be considered for the development process of a second generation multigene test and offers a means for transferring a microarray signature from the research laboratory to clinical practice.

Clinical advances in molecular biomarkers for cancer diagnosis and therapy

Cancer diagnosis is currently undergoing a paradigm shift with the incorporation of molecular biomarkers as part of routine diagnostic panel. The molecular alteration ranges from those involving the DNA, RNA, microRNAs (miRNAs) and proteins. The miRNAs are recently discovered small non-coding endogenous single-stranded RNAs that critically regulates the development, invasion and metastasis of cancers. They are altered in cancers and have the potential to serve as diagnostic markers for cancer. Moreover, deregulating their activity offers novel cancer therapeutic approaches. The availability of high throughput techniques for the identification of altered cellular molecules allowed their use in cancer diagnosis. Their application to a variety of body specimens from blood to tissues has been helpful for appreciating their use in the clinical context. The development of innovative antibodies for immunohistochemical detection of proteins also assists in diagnosis and risk stratification. Overall, the novel cancer diagnostic tools have extended their application as prognostic risk factors and can be used as targets for personalized medicine.