Edinburgh Explorer Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+): Validation of a clinical decision making tool in breast cancer in an independent series

The Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+) is a clinical decision making tool in breast cancer (BC) that aims to provide improved patient outcome stratification superior to the traditional NPI. This study aimed to validate the NPI+ in an independent series of BC. Eight hundred and eighty five primary early stage BC cases from Edinburgh were semi‐quantitatively assessed for 10 biomarkers [Estrogen Receptor (ER), Progesterone Receptor (PgR), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, CK7/8, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER2, HER3, HER4, p53, and Mucin 1] using immunohistochemistry and classified into biological classes by fuzzy logic‐derived algorithms previously developed in the Nottingham series. Subsequently, NPI+ Prognostic Groups (PGs) were assigned for each class using bespoke NPI‐like formulae, previously developed in each NPI+ biological class of the Nottingham series, utilising clinicopathological parameters: number of positive nodes, pathological tumour size, stage, tubule formation, nuclear pleomorphism and mitotic counts. Biological classes and PGs were compared between the Edinburgh and Nottingham series using Cramer's V and their role in patient outcome prediction using Kaplan–Meier curves and tested using Log Rank. The NPI+ biomarker panel classified the Edinburgh series into seven biological classes similar to the Nottingham series (p > 0.01). The biological classes were significantly associated with patient outcome (p < 0.001). PGs were comparable in predicting patient outcome between series in Luminal A, Basal p53 altered, HER2+/ER+ tumours (p > 0.01). The good PGs were similarly validated in Luminal B, Basal p53 normal, HER2+/ER− tumours and the poor PG in the Luminal N class (p > 0.01). Due to small patient numbers assigned to the remaining PGs, Luminal N, Luminal B, Basal p53 normal and HER2+/ER− classes could not be validated. This study demonstrates the reproducibility of NPI+ and confirmed its prognostic value in an independent cohort of primary BC. Further validation in large randomised controlled trial material is warranted.

[1]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  G. Ball,et al.  Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+): a modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[3]  R W Blamey,et al.  A new immunohistochemical antibody for the assessment of estrogen receptor status on routine formalin-fixed tissue samples. , 1995, Human pathology.

[4]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  ONCOPOOL - a European database for 16,944 cases of breast cancer. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[5]  I. Ellis,et al.  Determination of HER2 amplification in primary breast cancer using dual-colour chromogenic in situ hybridization is comparable to fluorescence in situ hybridization: a European multicentre study involving 168 specimens , 2010, Histopathology.

[6]  Elia Biganzoli,et al.  Molecular Subtyping of Breast Cancer from Traditional Tumor Marker Profiles Using Parallel Clustering Methods , 2006, Clinical Cancer Research.

[7]  Jonathan M. Garibaldi,et al.  A quantifier-based fuzzy classification system for breast cancer patients , 2013, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[8]  C. Axelsson,et al.  The Nottingham Prognostic Index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) , 2004, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[9]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Expression profiling predicts outcome in breast cancer , 2002, Breast Cancer Research.

[10]  R. Blamey,et al.  A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. , 1982, British Journal of Cancer.

[11]  J. Reis-Filho,et al.  Genomic analyses to select patients for adjuvant chemotherapy: trials and tribulations. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[12]  I. Ellis,et al.  The Nottingham prognostic index in primary breast cancer , 2005, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[13]  E B Cox,et al.  Estrogen receptor analyses. Correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies. , 1985, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[14]  J. Brown,et al.  Comment on the Nottingham Prognostic Index , 2004, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[15]  M. Cronin,et al.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  R W Blamey,et al.  Survival of invasive breast cancer according to the Nottingham Prognostic Index in cases diagnosed in 1990-1999. , 2007, European journal of cancer.

[17]  G. Ball,et al.  High‐throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well‐characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[18]  Ian O Ellis,et al.  Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Carlos Caldas,et al.  Molecular Classification of Breast Carcinomas Using Tissue Microarrays , 2003, Diagnostic molecular pathology : the American journal of surgical pathology, part B.

[20]  G. Ball,et al.  Identification of key clinical phenotypes of breast cancer using a reduced panel of protein biomarkers , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[21]  Yudong D. He,et al.  A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast Cancer , 2002 .

[22]  C. Giardina,et al.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index in patients with a long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution. , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[23]  A. Nobel,et al.  Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Paulo J. G. Lisboa,et al.  A methodology to identify consensus classes from clustering algorithms applied to immunohistochemical data from breast cancer patients , 2010, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[26]  Mark T. W. Ebbert,et al.  A Comparison of PAM50 Intrinsic Subtyping with Immunohistochemistry and Clinical Prognostic Factors in Tamoxifen-Treated Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[27]  John M S Bartlett,et al.  Histological grading of invasive breast carcinoma – a simplification of existing methods in a large conservation series with long‐term follow‐up , 2009, Histopathology.

[28]  W. Weichert,et al.  Identification of biology-based breast cancer types with distinct predictive and prognostic features: role of steroid hormone and HER2 receptor expression in patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy , 2009, Breast Cancer Research.

[29]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. , 2006, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[30]  W. Sauerbrei,et al.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[31]  John M.S. Bartlett,et al.  Can Molecular Markers Predict When to Implement Treatment with Aromatase Inhibitors in Invasive Breast Cancer? , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.