Conventional Pathology Versus Gene Signatures for Assessing Luminal A and B Type Breast Cancers: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study

In this study, in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) early stage breast cancer patients who were considered candidates for 70-gene signature (70-GS, “MammaPrint”) use, we compared molecular subtyping (MS) based on the previously validated 80-gene signature (80-GS, “BluePrint”) versus surrogate pathological subtyping (PS). Between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015, 595 clinical intermediate risk ER+ early stage breast cancer patients were enrolled. Hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 receptor status were determined by conventional pathology using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Ki67 was assessed in a subset of patients. The overall concordance between PS and MS for luminal type cancers (A and B together) was 98%. The concordance between PS and MS for luminal A and luminal B type cancers based on the Bloom Richardson histological grade (BR) (n = 586) or Ki67 (n = 185) was low: 64% (Kappa 0.20 [95% CI 0.11–0.28]) and 65% (Kappa 0.22 [95% CI 0.062–0.37]), respectively. In this prospective study (NCT02209857) of a selection of ER+ and predominantly HER2− early-stage breast cancer patients, the additional ability of the 80-GS to distinguish between luminal, HER2-type and basal-like cancers was inherently very limited. The distinction of luminal-type tumors into A and B according to Ki67 status or BR grade versus the 70-GS revealed poor concordance.

[1]  P. Whitworth,et al.  Pertuzumab/Trastuzumab/CT Versus Trastuzumab/CT Therapy for HER2+ Breast Cancer: Results from the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) , 2017, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[2]  E. Rutgers,et al.  Impact of 70-Gene Signature Use on Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decisions in Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study. , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  P. Whitworth,et al.  Chemosensitivity and Endocrine Sensitivity in Clinical Luminal Breast Cancer Patients in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) Predicted by Molecular Subtyping , 2016, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  Paul J. van Diest,et al.  St Gallen 2015 subtyping of luminal breast cancers: impact of different Ki67-based proliferation assessment methods , 2016, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  L. V. van't Veer,et al.  70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Ping Tang,et al.  Immunohistochemical Surrogates for Molecular Classification of Breast Carcinoma: A 2015 Update. , 2016, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[7]  J. Wesseling,et al.  Molecular subtyping improves diagnostic stratification of patients with primary breast cancer into prognostically defined risk groups , 2015, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[8]  M. Fernö,et al.  Highly reproducible results of breast cancer biomarkers when analysed in accordance with national guidelines – a Swedish survey with central re-assessment , 2015, Acta oncologica.

[9]  R. Gelber,et al.  Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015 , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[10]  B. Thürlimann,et al.  Standardization for Ki-67 Assessment in Moderately Differentiated Breast Cancer. A Retrospective Analysis of the SAKK 28/12 Study , 2015, PloS one.

[11]  P. Whitworth,et al.  Chemosensitivity Predicted by BluePrint 80-Gene Functional Subtype and MammaPrint in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) , 2014, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[12]  John M S Bartlett,et al.  Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[13]  C. Perou,et al.  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 , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  J. Peeters,et al.  Molecular subtyping of early-stage breast cancer identifies a group of patients who do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[15]  C. Perou,et al.  Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  Bichlien Nguyen,et al.  Comparison of Molecular Subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to Local Clinical Subtyping in Breast Cancer Patients , 2012, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[17]  Jason S. Carroll,et al.  A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[18]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  R. Greil,et al.  A New Molecular Predictor of Distant Recurrence in ER-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Adds Independent Information to Conventional Clinical Risk Factors , 2011, Clinical Cancer Research.

[20]  R. Gelber,et al.  Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011 , 2011, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  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.

[22]  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, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  R. Gelber,et al.  Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2009 , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[24]  Charles M. Perou,et al.  Ki67 Index, HER2 Status, and Prognosis of Patients With Luminal B Breast Cancer , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  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.

[26]  I. Ellis,et al.  An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[27]  Mitch Dowsett,et al.  Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[29]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer , 2002, Nature.

[30]  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.

[31]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.

[32]  Johannes Gerdes,et al.  The Ki‐67 protein: From the known and the unknown , 2000, Journal of cellular physiology.

[33]  Walter Kägi St. Gallen , 2000 .

[34]  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.

[35]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment. , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[36]  Van,et al.  A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.