A qualitative transcriptional signature to reclassify estrogen receptor status of breast cancer patients

PurposeImmunohistochemistry (IHC) assessment of the estrogen receptor (ER) status has low consensus among pathologists. Quantitative transcriptional signatures are highly sensitive to the measurement variation and sample quality. Here, we developed a robust qualitative signature, based on within-sample relative expression orderings (REOs) of genes, to reclassify ER status.MethodsFrom the gene pairs with significantly stable REOs in ER+ samples and reversely stable REOs in ER− samples, concordantly identified from four datasets, we extracted a signature to determine a sample’s ER status through evaluating whether the REOs within the sample significantly match with the ER+ REOs or the ER− REOs.ResultsA signature with 112 gene pairs was extracted. It was validated through evaluating whether the reclassified ER+ or ER− patients could benefit from tamoxifen therapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In three datasets for IHC-determined ER+ patients treated with post-operative tamoxifen therapy, 11.6–12.4% patients were reclassified as ER− by the signature and, as expected, they had significantly worse recurrence-free survival than the ER+ patients confirmed by the signature. On another hand, in two datasets for IHC-determined ER− patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 18.8 and 7.8% patients were reclassified as ER+ and, as expected, their pathological complete response rate was significantly lower than that of the other ER− patients confirmed by the signature.ConclusionsThe REO-based signature can provide an objective assessment of ER status of breast cancer patients and effectively reduce misjudgments of ER status by IHC.

[1]  Bin Li,et al.  Extensive increase of microarray signals in cancers calls for novel normalization assumptions , 2011, Comput. Biol. Chem..

[2]  D. Harrington A class of rank test procedures for censored survival data , 1982 .

[3]  Zheng Guo,et al.  Circumvent the uncertainty in the applications of transcriptional signatures to tumor tissues sampled from different tumor sites , 2017, Oncotarget.

[4]  Emilio Bria,et al.  Discordance in pathology report after central pathology review: Implications for breast cancer adjuvant treatment. , 2016, Breast.

[5]  A K Bahn,et al.  Application of binomial distribution to medicine: comparison of one sample proportion to an expected proportion (for small samples). Evaluation of a new treatment. Evaluation of a risk factor. , 1969, Journal of the American Medical Women's Association.

[6]  Hans-Peter Sinn,et al.  International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Prasad Patil,et al.  Test set bias affects reproducibility of gene signatures , 2015, Bioinform..

[8]  P. Querzoli,et al.  An international study comparing conventional versus mRNA level testing (TargetPrint) for ER, PR, and HER2 status of breast cancer , 2016, Virchows Archiv.

[9]  Zheng Guo,et al.  Differential expression analysis for individual cancer samples based on robust within-sample relative gene expression orderings across multiple profiling platforms , 2016, Oncotarget.

[10]  Hanlee P. Ji,et al.  The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. , 2006, Nature biotechnology.

[11]  Zheng Guo,et al.  An individualized prognostic signature and multi-omics distinction for early stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients with surgical resection , 2016, Oncotarget.

[12]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  G. Hampton,et al.  Development of a robust RNA-based classifier to accurately determine ER, PR, and HER2 status in breast cancer clinical samples , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[14]  Rafael A Irizarry,et al.  Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. , 2003, Biostatistics.

[15]  Zheng Guo,et al.  Robust transcriptional signatures for low-input RNA samples based on relative expression orderings , 2017, BMC Genomics.

[16]  C. Shimizu,et al.  Comparison of evaluations for hormone receptors in breast carcinoma using two manual and three automated immunohistochemical assays. , 2007, American journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  Lajos Pusztai,et al.  Determination of oestrogen-receptor status and ERBB2 status of breast carcinoma: a gene-expression profiling study. , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  T. Kirkegaard,et al.  Observer variation in immunohistochemical analysis of protein expression, time for a change? , 2006, Histopathology.

[19]  R Peto,et al.  Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials , 2011, The Lancet.

[20]  S. Leung,et al.  Molecular subtype profiling of invasive breast cancers weakly positive for estrogen receptor , 2016, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[21]  T. Sørlie,et al.  Reliable PCR quantitation of estrogen, progesterone and ERBB2 receptor mRNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue is independent of prior macro-dissection , 2013, Virchows Archiv.

[22]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Which threshold for ER positivity? a retrospective study based on 9639 patients. , 2014, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[23]  V. Dubowitz A new muscle journal for the nineties , 1991, Neuromuscular Disorders.

[24]  M. Hammond,et al.  Recommendations for validating estrogen and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry assays. , 2010, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[25]  A. Hackshaw,et al.  Long-term benefits of 5 years of tamoxifen: 10-year follow-up of a large randomized trial in women at least 50 years of age with early breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  Jinha M. Park,et al.  Evaluation of HER-2/neu gene amplification and overexpression: comparison of frequently used assay methods in a molecularly characterized cohort of breast cancer specimens. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  Edith A Perez,et al.  Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  Maqc Consortium The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[29]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics , 2011 .

[30]  Ming-Feng Hou,et al.  Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial , 2013, The Lancet.

[31]  Da Yang,et al.  An individualized prognostic signature for gastric cancer patients treated with 5-Fluorouracil-based chemotherapy and distinct multi-omics characteristics of prognostic groups , 2016, OncoTarget.

[32]  Libin Chen,et al.  Critical limitations of prognostic signatures based on risk scores summarized from gene expression levels: a case study for resected stage I non-small-cell lung cancer , 2016, Briefings Bioinform..

[33]  Na Li,et al.  Robust transcriptional tumor signatures applicable to both formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded and fresh-frozen samples , 2016, Oncotarget.

[34]  S. Duffy,et al.  Radiotherapy or tamoxifen after conserving surgery for breast cancers of excellent prognosis: British Association of Surgical Oncology (BASO) II trial. , 2013, European journal of cancer.

[35]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Microarray-Based Determination of Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Receptor Status in Breast Cancer , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[36]  A. Vincent-Salomon,et al.  Estrogen-Receptor, Progesterone-Receptor and HER2 Status Determination in Invasive Breast Cancer. Concordance between Immuno-Histochemistry and MapQuant™ Microarray Based Assay , 2016, PloS one.

[37]  N. Sneige,et al.  Interobserver agreement for estrogen receptor immunohistochemical analysis in breast cancer: a comparison of manual and computer-assisted scoring methods. , 2004, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[38]  E. Hovig,et al.  Methods that remove batch effects while retaining group differences may lead to exaggerated confidence in downstream analyses , 2015, Biostatistics.

[39]  A. Glas,et al.  Immunohistochemical versus molecular (BluePrint and MammaPrint) subtyping of breast carcinoma. Outcome results from the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[40]  Xin Du,et al.  The detection of ESR1/PGR/ERBB2 mRNA levels by RT-QPCR: a better approach for subtyping breast cancer and predicting prognosis , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[41]  Xin Li,et al.  An individualized gene expression signature for prediction of lung adenocarcinoma metastases , 2017, Molecular oncology.

[42]  D. Larsimont,et al.  Evaluation of HER-2/NEU Protein Expression in Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry: An Interlaboratory Study Assessing the Reproducibility of HER-2/NEU Testing , 2002, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[43]  Jaeyun Sung,et al.  Relative Expression Analysis for Molecular Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis , 2010, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[44]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[45]  Adi F Gazdar,et al.  Predictive and prognostic factors for non-small cell lung cancer--potholes in the road to the promised land. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[46]  Xuesong Lu,et al.  Predicting features of breast cancer with gene expression patterns , 2008, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[47]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.