Analytical validation of the 7-gene biosignature for prediction of recurrence risk and radiation therapy benefit for breast ductal carcinoma in situ

Purpose Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), is a noninvasive breast cancer, representing 20-25% of breast cancer diagnoses in the USA. Current treatment options for DCIS include mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with or without radiation therapy (RT), but optimal risk-adjusted treatment selection remains a challenge. Findings from past and recent clinical trials have failed to identify a ‘low risk’ group of patients who do not benefit significantly from RT after BCS. To address this unmet need, a DCIS biosignature, DCISionRT (PreludeDx, Laguna Hills, CA), was developed and validated in multiple cohorts. DCISionRT is a molecular assay with an algorithm reporting a recurrence risk score for patients diagnosed with DCIS intended to guide DCIS treatment. In this study, we present results from analytical validity, performance assessment, and clinical performance validation and clinical utility for the DCISionRT test comprised of multianalyte assays with algorithmic analysis. Methods The analytical validation of each molecular assay was performed based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines Quality Assurance for Design Control and Implementation of Immunohistochemistry Assays and the College of American Pathologists/American Society of Clinical Oncology (CAP/ASCO) recommendations for analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays. Results The analytic validation showed that the molecular assays that are part of DCISionRT test have high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy/reproducibility (≥95%). The analytic precision of the molecular assays under controlled non-standard conditions had a total standard deviation of 6.6 (100-point scale), where the analytic variables (Lot, Machine, Run) each contributed <1% of the total variance. Additionally, the precision in the DCISionRT test result (DS) had a 95%CI ≤0.4 DS units under controlled non-standard conditions (Day, Lot, and Machine) for molecular assays over a wide range of clinicopathologic factor values. Clinical validation showed that the test identified 37% of patients in a low-risk group with a 10-year invasive IBR rate of ~3% and an absolute risk reduction (ARR) from RT of 1% (number needed to treat, NNT=100), while remaining patients with higher DS scores (elevated-risk) had an ARR for RT of 9% (NNT=11) and 96% clinical sensitivity for RT benefit. Conclusion The analytical performance of the PreludeDx DCISionRT molecular assays was high in representative formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast tumor specimens. The DCISionRT test has been analytically validated and has been clinically validated in multiple peer-reviewed published studies.

[1]  M. Moran,et al.  Risk Assessment in the Molecular Era. , 2022, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[2]  F. Vicini,et al.  Assessing the benefit of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients following breast-conserving surgery with or without radiation stratified by a 7-gene predictive DCIS biosignature. , 2022, Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  F. Vicini,et al.  Prognostic Risk Assessment and Prediction of Radiotherapy Benefit for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast, in a Randomized Clinical Trial (SweDCIS) , 2021, Cancers.

[4]  Barbara L. Smith,et al.  Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating Radiation Following Surgical Excision for Good-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Long-Term Report From NRG Oncology/RTOG 9804 , 2021, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  F. Vicini,et al.  A novel biosignature identifies DCIS patients with a poor biologic subtype with an unacceptably high rate of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. , 2021 .

[6]  Rakesh R. Patel,et al.  Correction to: The Clinical Utility of DCISionRT® on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery , 2021, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[7]  Rakesh R. Patel,et al.  The Clinical Utility of DCISionRT® on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery , 2021, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[8]  S. Pinder,et al.  Variability in grading of ductal carcinoma in situ among an international group of pathologists , 2021, The journal of pathology. Clinical research.

[9]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2021 , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[10]  P. V. van Diest,et al.  Grading variation in 2,934 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the effect of laboratory- and pathologist-specific feedback reports , 2020, Diagnostic Pathology.

[11]  Rakesh R. Patel,et al.  Validation of a Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Biomarker Profile for Risk of Recurrence after Breast-Conserving Surgery with and without Radiotherapy , 2020, Clinical Cancer Research.

[12]  A. Raldow,et al.  Cost Effectiveness of DCISionRT for Guiding Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ , 2020, JNCI cancer spectrum.

[13]  M. Torres Genomic Assays to Assess Local Recurrence Risk and Predict Radiation Therapy Benefit in Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. , 2019, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  L. Solin Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast: Present Approaches and Future Directions , 2019, Current Oncology Reports.

[15]  Rakesh R. Patel,et al.  A Biological Signature for Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ to Predict Radiotherapy Benefit and Assess Recurrence Risk , 2018, Clinical Cancer Research.

[16]  J. Benson,et al.  Management of ductal carcinoma in situ in the modern era. , 2018, Minerva chirurgica.

[17]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[18]  Li-Tai Hu,et al.  YAP transcriptionally regulates COX-2 expression and GCCSysm-4 (G-4), a dual YAP/COX-2 inhibitor, overcomes drug resistance in colorectal cancer , 2017, Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research.

[19]  Rinku Sutradhar,et al.  Multigene Expression Assay and Benefit of Radiotherapy After Breast Conservation in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ , 2017, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  A. Barrio,et al.  Controversies in the Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. , 2017, Annual review of medicine.

[21]  R. Gray,et al.  Surgical Excision Without Radiation for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: 12-Year Results From the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 Study. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  S. Shak,et al.  A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone , 2015, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  Marius Raica,et al.  The Story of MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cell Line: 40 years of Experience in Research. , 2015, Anticancer research.

[24]  Barbara L. Smith,et al.  RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Lara J. Monteiro,et al.  FOXA1 repression is associated with loss of BRCA1 and increased promoter methylation and chromatin silencing in breast cancer , 2014, Oncogene.

[26]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Effect of Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: 20 Years Follow-Up in the Randomized SweDCIS Trial , 2014 .

[27]  Linda A Bradley,et al.  Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[28]  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.

[29]  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. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  Margaret E McLaughlin-Drubin,et al.  Tumor suppressor p16INK4A is necessary for survival of cervical carcinoma cell lines , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  G. Schwartz,et al.  Association of RB/p16-pathway perturbations with DCIS recurrence: dependence on tumor versus tissue microenvironment. , 2011, The American journal of pathology.

[32]  J. Palazzo,et al.  Prognostic markers and long‐term outcomes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with excision alone , 2011, Cancer.

[33]  H. Kuerer,et al.  Biological Markers in DCIS and Risk of Breast Recurrence: A Systematic Review , 2011, Journal of Cancer.

[34]  R. Kane,et al.  Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[35]  R. Peto,et al.  Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[36]  Edi Brogi,et al.  Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[37]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[38]  R. Kane,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[39]  M. Pike,et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference statement: Diagnosis and Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ September 22-24, 2009. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[40]  M. Hung,et al.  The Expression Patterns of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6, EGFR, Ki-67 and AR by Immunohistochemical Analysis in Breast Cancer Cell Lines , 2010, Breast cancer : basic and clinical research.

[41]  T. Wilt,et al.  Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). , 2009, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[42]  M. Cooper,et al.  The significance of the Van Nuys prognostic index in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ , 2008, World journal of surgical oncology.

[43]  F. Schmidt Meta-Analysis , 2008 .

[44]  E. Rakovitch,et al.  Biological Markers Predictive of Invasive Recurrence in DCIS , 2008, Clinical medicine. Oncology.

[45]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Abrogated response to cellular stress identifies DCIS associated with subsequent tumor events and defines basal-like breast tumors. , 2007, Cancer cell.

[46]  T. Hieken,et al.  Predicting relapse in ductal carcinoma in situ patients: an analysis of biologic markers with long-term follow-up. , 2007, American journal of surgery.

[47]  J. Wesseling,et al.  p53 overexpression is a predictor of local recurrence after treatment for both in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. , 2007, The Journal of surgical research.

[48]  Wen-Lin Kuo,et al.  A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. , 2006, Cancer cell.

[49]  L. Holmberg,et al.  SweDCIS: Radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Results of a randomised trial in a population offered mammography screening , 2006, Acta oncologica.

[50]  K. Camphausen,et al.  Early ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after breast conservation affect survival: an analysis of the National Cancer Institute randomized trial. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[51]  M. Sliwkowski,et al.  Evolution of the MDA-MB-175 breast cancer cell line from a low to a high HER2 expressing tumor line , 2005 .

[52]  S. Steinberg,et al.  Eighteen‐year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy , 2003, Cancer.

[53]  P. Hall,et al.  Mortality from cardiovascular disease more than 10 years after radiotherapy for breast cancer: nationwide cohort study of 90 000 Swedish women , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[54]  B. E. F. Isher,et al.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. , 2002 .

[55]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  Evaluation of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical assay sensitivity and scoring on formalin-fixed and paraffin-processed cell lines and breast tumors: a comparative study involving results from laboratories in 21 countries. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[56]  T. Lumley,et al.  Time‐Dependent ROC Curves for Censored Survival Data and a Diagnostic Marker , 2000, Biometrics.

[57]  J. Coindre,et al.  Application of the Van Nuys prognostic index in a retrospective series of 367 ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast examinated by serial macroscopic sectioning: Practical considerations , 2000, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[58]  R. Arriagada,et al.  Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[59]  F. Vicini,et al.  Prognostic Risk Assessment and Prediction of Radiotherapy Benefit for Women with Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) of the Breast in a Randomized Clinical Trial (SweDCIS) , 2021, Social Science Research Network.

[60]  Rhona J. Souers,et al.  Immunohistochemistry validation procedures and practices: a College of American Pathologists survey of 727 laboratories. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[61]  Christopher Otis,et al.  Quality assurance for design control and implementation of immunohistochemistry assays; Approved guidelinesecond edition , 2011 .

[62]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Histopathological risk factors for ipsilateral breast events after breast conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast--results from the Swedish randomised trial. , 2007, European journal of cancer.

[63]  H. Mouridsen,et al.  Danish randomized trial comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy: six years of life-table analysis. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[64]  George M. Nixon,et al.  Practical Considerations of , 1945 .