Molecular Subtyping of Invasive Breast Cancer Using a PAM50-Based Multigene Expression Test-Comparison with Molecular-Like Subtyping by Tumor Grade/Immunohistochemistry and Influence on Oncologist's Decision on Systemic Therapy in a Real-World Setting

Serum miR-181а and miR-25 Levels in Patients with Breast Cancer or Benign Breast Disease

Circulating miR-181а and miR-25, which reflect regulation of the expression of carcinogenesis-related genes, were assayed in patients with invasive carcinoma of no specific type (ICNT) or benign breast diseases (BBDs) and in subjects without pathologies of the mammary gland (controls). miR-181а expression level proved to be higher compared to control in patients with fibroadenoma and adenosis with low, but not high, risk of malignant transformation, as well as in patients with luminal HER2-negative type B (Lum B HER2-), HER2-positive type (HER2+), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) than in the controls and luminal-type (Lum A) breast cancer. MiR-25 expression level prevailed in patients with Lum B HER2- compared to control, Lum A, and TNBC patients compared to Lum A. Thus, miR-181а and miR-25 expression levels may be risk indicators of malignant transformation in some patients with BBD, whereas in patients with ICNT, these levels reflect pathological processes of different directions within the tumor.

The Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50 (PAM50) Gene Expression Classifier Utilized in Indeterminate-Risk Breast Cancer Patients in Hungary: A Consecutive 5-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer has been categorized into molecular subtypes using immunohistochemical staining (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) since the early 2000s. However, recent research suggests that gene expression testing, specifically Prosigna® Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50 (PAM50), provides more accurate classification methods. In this retrospective study, we compared the results of IHC/FISH and PAM50 testing. We also examined the impact of various PAM50 parameters on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

We analyzed 42 unilateral breast cancer samples, with 18 classified as luminal A, 10 as luminal B, 8 as Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, and 6 as basal-like using PAM50. Interestingly, 17 out of the 42 samples (40.47%) showed discordant results between histopathological assessment and the PAM50 classifier. While routine IHC/FISH resulted in classification differences for a quarter to a third of samples within each subtype, all basal-like tumors were misclassified. Hormone receptor-positive tumors (hazard rate: 8.7803; p = 0.0085) and patients who had higher 10-year recurrence risk scores (hazard rate: 1.0539; p = 0.0201) had shorter OS and PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the existing understanding of molecular subtypes in breast cancer and emphasizes the overlap between clinical characteristics and molecular subtyping. These findings underscore the value of gene expression profiling, such as PAM50, in improving treatment decisions for breast cancer patients.

PROCURE European consensus on breast cancer multigene signatures in early breast cancer management

Breast cancer multigene signatures (BCMS) have changed how patients with early-stage breast cancer (eBC) are managed, as they provide prognostic information and can be used to select patients who may avoid adjuvant chemotherapy. Clinical guidelines make recommendations on the use of BCMS; however, little is known on the current use of BCMS in clinical practice. We conduct a two-round Delphi survey to enquire about current use and perceived utility for specific patient profiles, and unmet needs of BCMS. Overall, 133 panellists experienced in breast cancer across 11 European countries have participated, most using BCMS either routinely (66.2%) or in selected cases (27.1%). Our results show that BCMS are mainly used to assess the risk of recurrence and to select patients for adjuvant chemotherapy; notably, no consensus has been reached on the lack of utility of BCMS for selecting the type of chemotherapy to administer. Also, there are discrepancies between the recommended and current use of BCMS in clinical practice, with use in certain patient profiles for which there is no supporting evidence. Our study suggests that physician education initiatives are needed to ensure the correct use and interpretation of BCMS to, ultimately, improve management of patients with eBC.

The Evolution of Ki-67 and Breast Carcinoma: Past Observations, Present Directions, and Future Considerations

The 1983 discovery of a mouse monoclonal antibody-the Ki-67 antibody-that recognized a nuclear antigen present only in proliferating cells represented a seminal discovery for the pathologic assessment of cellular proliferation in breast cancer and other solid tumors. Cellular proliferation is a central determinant of prognosis and response to cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, and since the discovery of the Ki-67 antibody, Ki-67 has evolved as an important biomarker with both prognostic and predictive potential in breast cancer. Although there is universal recognition among the international guideline recommendations of the value of Ki-67 in breast cancer, recommendations for the actual use of Ki-67 assays in the prognostic and predictive evaluation of breast cancer remain mixed, primarily due to the lack of assay standardization and inconsistent inter-observer and inter-laboratory reproducibility. The treatment of high-risk ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) negative breast cancer with the recently FDA-approved drug abemaciclib relies on a quantitative assessment of Ki-67 expression in the treatment decision algorithm. This further reinforces the urgent need for standardization of Ki-67 antibody selection and staining interpretation, which will hopefully lead to multidisciplinary consensus on the use of Ki-67 as a prognostic and predictive marker in breast cancer. The goals of this review are to highlight the historical evolution of Ki-67 in breast cancer, summarize the present literature on Ki-67 in breast cancer, and discuss the evolving literature on the use of Ki-67 as a companion diagnostic biomarker in breast cancer, with consideration for the necessary changes required across pathology practices to help increase the reliability and widespread adoption of Ki-67 as a prognostic and predictive marker for breast cancer in clinical practice.