Molecular subtyping improves diagnostic stratification of patients with primary breast cancer into prognostically defined risk groups

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Katharine Yao ; Robert Goldschmidt ; Mary Turk…
• 关键词：Breast cancer ; Molecular subtyping ; Molecular assay ; Prognosis
• 刊名：Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：November 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：154
• 期：1
• 页码：81-88
• 全文大小：912 KB
• 参考文献：1.Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, Panel members (2013) Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 24(9):2206-223PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  2.Perou CM, S?rlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA, Fluge O, Pergamenschikov A, Williams C, Zhu SX, L?nning PE, B?rresen-Dale AL, Brown PO, Botstein D (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747-52CrossRef PubMed
  3.Krijgsman O, Roepman P, Zwart W, Carroll JS, Tian S, de Snoo FA, Bender RA, Bernards R, Glas AM (2012) A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:37-7CrossRef PubMed
  4.Glück S, de Snoo F, Peeters J, Stork-Sloots L, Somlo G (2013) Molecular subtyping of early-stage breast cancer identifies a group of patients who do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 139(3):759-67CrossRef PubMed
  5.Delahaye LJM, Wehkamp D, Floore AN, Bernards R, van‘t Veer LJ, Glas AM (2013) Performance characteristics of the MammaPrint? breast cancer diagnostic gene signature. Personal Med 10(8):801-11CrossRef
  6.Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, Hicks DG, Lester S, Love R, Mangu PB, McShane L, Miller K, Osborne CK, Paik S, Perlmutter J, Rhodes A, Sasano H, Schwartz JN, Sweep FC, Taube S, Torlakovic EE, Valenstein P, Viale G, Visscher D, Wheeler T, Williams RB, Wittliff JL, Wolff AC (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(16):2784-795PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  7.Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Thompson A, Zackrisson S, Cardoso F (2013) ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 24(Suppl 6):vi7–vi23
  8.Whitworth P, Stork-Sloots L, de Snoo FA, Richards P, Rotkis M, Beatty J, Mislowsky A, Pellicane JV, Nguyen B, Lee L, Nash C, Gittleman M, Akbari S, Beitsch PD (2014) Chemosensitivity predicted by BluePrint 80-gene functional subtype and MammaPrint in the prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST). Ann Surg Oncol 21(10):3261-267PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  9.Groenendijk FH, Zwart W, Floore A, Akbari S, Bernards R (2013) Estrogen receptor splice variants as a potential source of false-positive estrogen receptor status in breast cancer diagnostics. Breast Cancer Res Treat 140(3):475-84PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  10.Iwamoto T, Booser D, Valero V, Murray JL, Koenig K, Esteva FJ, Ueno NT, Zhang J, Shi W, Qi Y, Matsuoka J, Yang EJ, Hortobagyi GN, Hatzis C, Symmans WF, Pusztai L (2012) Estrogen receptor (ER) mRNA and ER-related gene expression in breast cancers that are 1 % to 10 % ER-positive by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol 30(7):729-34CrossRef PubMed
  11.Deyarmin B, Kane JL, Valente AL, van Laar R, Gallagher C, Shriver CD, Ellsworth RE (2013) Effect of ASCO/CAP guidelines for determining ER status on molecular subtype. Ann Surg Oncol 20(1):87-3CrossRef PubMed
  12.Pogue-Geile KL, Song N, Jeong JH, Gavin PG, Kim SR, Blackmon NL, Finnigan M, Rastogi P, Fehrenbacher L, Mamounas EP, Swain SM, Wickerham DL, Geyer CE Jr, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, Paik S (2015) Intrinsic subtypes, PIK3CA mutation, and the degree of benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab in the NSABP trial B-31. J Clin Oncol 33(12):1340-347CrossRef PubMed
  13.Bayraktar S, Royce M, Stork-Sloots L, de Snoo F, Glück S (2014) Molecular subtyping predicts pathologic tumor response in early-stage breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel plus capecitabine with or without trastuzumab chemotherapy. Med Oncol 31(10):163CrossRef PubMed
  
• 作者单位：Katharine Yao (1)
  Robert Goldschmidt (1)
  Mary Turk (1)
  Jelle Wesseling (3)
  Lisette Stork-Sloots (4)
  Femke de Snoo (4)
  Massimo Cristofanilli (2) (5)
  
  1. NorthShore University HealthSystem, 2650 Ridge Ave. Suite 1155, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA
  3. Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  4. Agendia NV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  5. Robert Lurie Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Oncology
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-7217

文摘

Combined use of MammaPrint and a molecular subtyping profile (BluePrint) identifies disease subgroups with marked differences in long-term outcome and response to neo-adjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of molecular subtyping using MammaPrint and BluePrint in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC) treated at US institutions following National Comprehensive Cancer Network standard guidelines. Tumor samples were collected from stage 1-2B consecutively diagnosed BC patients (n = 373) who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy with an axillary staging procedure between 1992 and 2010 at two institutes (NorthShore University HealthSystem and Fox Chase Cancer Center) in the United States of America, with a median follow-up time of 9.5 years. MammaPrint low-risk patients had a 10-year DMFS of 96 % (95 %CI 92.8-9.4), while MammaPrint high-risk patients had a 10-year DMFS of 87 % (95 %CI 81.9-2.1) with a hazard ratio of 3.62 (95 %CI 1.38-.50) (p = 0.005). Uni- and multivariate analyses included age, tumor size, grade, ER, and Her2; in multivariate analysis, MammaPrint reached near-significance (HR 3.01; p 0.08). When comparing BluePrint molecular subtyping with clinical stratification, the prognosis (10-year DMFS) was significantly different in 10-year DMFS between the different molecular subtypes (p < 0.001). This retrospective study with 10-year follow-up data provides valuable insight into prognosis of patients with primary BC comparing clinical with molecular subtyping. The BluePrint molecular stratification assay identifies patients with significantly different outcomes compared with standard clinical molecular stratification. Keywords Breast cancer Molecular subtyping Molecular assay Prognosis