Comparison of six breast cancer classifiers using qPCR

Motivation Several gene expression based risk scores and subtype classifiers for breast cancer were developed to distinguish high and low risk patients. Evaluating the performance of these classifiers helps to decide which classifiers should be used in clinical practice for personal therapeutic recommendations. So far, studies that compared multiple classifiers in large independent patient cohorts mostly used microarray measurements. qPCR based classifiers were not included in the comparison or had to be adapted to the different experimental platforms. Results We used a prospective study of 726 early breast cancer patients from 7 certified German breast cancer centers. Patients were treated according to national guidelines and the expressions of 94 selected genes were measured by the mid-throughput qPCR platform Fluidigm. Clinical and pathological data including outcome over five years is available. Using this data, we could compare the performance of six classifiers (scmgene and research versions of PAM50, ROR-S, recurrence score, EndoPredict and GGI). Similar to other studies, we found a similar or even higher concordance between most of the classifiers and most were also able to differentiate high and low risk patients. The classifiers that were originally developed for microarray data still performed similarly using the Fluidigm data. Therefore, Fluidigm can be used to measure the gene expressions needed by several classifiers for a large cohort with little effort. In addition, we provide an interactive report of the results, which enables a transparent, in-depth comparison of classifiers and their prediction of individual patients. Availability https://services.bio.ifi.lmu.de/pia/. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

[1]  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.

[2]  H. Moch,et al.  Comparison of EndoPredict and Oncotype DX Test Results in Hormone Receptor Positive Invasive Breast Cancer , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  A. Berjón,et al.  Comparison of risk classification between EndoPredict and MammaPrint in ER-positive/HER2-negative primary invasive breast cancer , 2017, PloS one.

[4]  A. Nobel,et al.  Concordance among Gene-Expression – Based Predictors for Breast Cancer , 2011 .

[5]  Ramesh Ramakrishnan,et al.  High Throughput Gene Expression Measurement with Real Time PCR in a Microfluidic Dynamic Array , 2008, PloS one.

[6]  Virginia G Kaklamani,et al.  Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21‐Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  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.

[8]  Mark T. W. Ebbert,et al.  Agreement in risk prediction between the 21-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX®) and the PAM50 breast cancer intrinsic Classifier™ in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. , 2012, The oncologist.

[9]  Joel S. Parker,et al.  Genefu: an R/Bioconductor package for computation of gene expression-based signatures in breast cancer , 2016, Bioinform..

[10]  David Venet,et al.  Most Random Gene Expression Signatures Are Significantly Associated with Breast Cancer Outcome , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  C. Perou,et al.  Prognostic ability of EndoPredict compared to research-based versions of the PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) scores in node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive, and HER2-negative breast cancer. A GEICAM/9906 sub-study , 2016, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[12]  John Quackenbush,et al.  A three-gene model to robustly identify breast cancer molecular subtypes. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  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.

[14]  Sally Hunsberger,et al.  Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: the STEEP system. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  L. Sobin,et al.  TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours , 1987, UICC International Union Against Cancer.

[16]  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.

[17]  Zhonghu Bai,et al.  Breast cancer intrinsic subtype classification, clinical use and future trends. , 2015, American journal of cancer research.

[18]  Benjamin Haibe-Kains,et al.  Improvement of the clinical applicability of the Genomic Grade Index through a qRT-PCR test performed on frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues , 2009, BMC Genomics.

[19]  Virginia G Kaklamani,et al.  Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[21]  P. Fasching,et al.  Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[23]  Gianluca Bontempi,et al.  Comparison of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[24]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Comparison of the Performance of 6 Prognostic Signatures for Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer , 2018, JAMA oncology.

[25]  C. Fan,et al.  PAM50 assay and the three-gene model for identifying the major and clinically relevant molecular subtypes of breast cancer , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[26]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Comparison of EndoPredict and EPclin With Oncotype DX Recurrence Score for Prediction of Risk of Distant Recurrence After Endocrine Therapy , 2016, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[27]  C. Fan,et al.  Concordance among gene expression-based predictors for ER-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[28]  C. Perou,et al.  Gene Expression Signatures and Immunohistochemical Subtypes Add Prognostic Value to Each Other in Breast Cancer Cohorts , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.