MammaPrint versus EndoPredict: Poor correlation in disease recurrence risk classification of hormone receptor positive breast cancer

Introduction Correct risk assessment of disease recurrence in patients with early breast cancer is critically important to detect patients who may be spared adjuvant chemotherapy. In clinical practice this is increasingly done based on the results of gene expression assays. In the present study we compared the concordance of the 70-gene signature MammaPrint (MP) with the 12 gene assay EndoPredict (EP). Methods Representative tissue of 48 primary tumours was analysed with the MP during routine diagnostic purposes. Corresponding formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was thereafter analysed by the EP test. Risk categories of both tests were compared. Results 41 of 48 tumours could be directly compared by both tests. Of the 17 MP low risk cases, only 9 were considered low risk by EP (53% agreement) and of the 24 MP high risk cases, 18 were high risk by EP (75% agreement). Discrepancies occurred in 14 of 41 cases (34.1%). There was only a weak and non-significant correlation between the MP and EP test with an overall concordance of only 66%. The original therapeutic recommendation was based on the MP and would have been changed in 38% of the patients following EP test results. 4 patients developed distant metastases. The respective tumours of these patients were all classified as high risk by the EP, but only 3 were classified as high risk by the MP. Conclusion Both tests resulted in different treatment recommendations for a significant proportion of patients and cannot be used interchangeably. The results underscore the urgent need for further comparative analyses of multi-genomic tests to avoid misclassification of disease recurrence risk in breast cancer patients.

[1]  Sunil Badve,et al.  Personalized medicine: the road ahead. , 2011, Clinical breast cancer.

[2]  T. Sørlie,et al.  Systematic assessment of prognostic gene signatures for breast cancer shows distinct influence of time and ER status , 2014, BMC Cancer.

[3]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  Jeffrey E. Green,et al.  Molecular Profiling of Breast Cancer , 2003 .

[5]  Michael Hauptmann,et al.  The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer , 2010, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  F. Baehner,et al.  A Prospective Comparison of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score and the PAM50-Based Prosigna in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer , 2015, Advances in Therapy.

[9]  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.

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

[11]  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.

[12]  S. Paik.  Is gene array testing to be considered routine now? , 2011, Breast.

[13]  F. Cardoso,et al.  Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2019, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  R. Greil,et al.  The EndoPredict score provides prognostic information on late distant metastases in ER+/HER2− breast cancer patients , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

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

[18]  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.

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

[20]  R. Greil,et al.  EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  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.

[22]  A. Glas,et al.  The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1–3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study , 2009, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  D. Hanahan,et al.  The Hallmarks of Cancer , 2000, Cell.

[24]  R. Peto,et al.  Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. , 2012, Lancet.

[25]  T. Nielsen,et al.  Developing a new generation of breast cancer clinical gene expression tests , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[26]  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.

[27]  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.

[28]  Annuska M Glas,et al.  Biological Functions of the Genes in the Mammaprint Breast Cancer Profile Reflect the Hallmarks of Cancer , 2010, Biomarker insights.

[29]  A. Schneeweiss,et al.  Multigene Assays for Classification, Prognosis, and Prediction in Breast Cancer: a Critical Review on the Background and Clinical Utility , 2013, Senologie.

[30]  E. U. Green.  On the Occurrence of Crystalline Material in the Lungs of Normal and Cancerous Swiss Mice , 1942 .

[31]  C. Denkert,et al.  Decentral gene expression analysis: analytical validation of the Endopredict genomic multianalyte breast cancer prognosis test , 2012, BMC Cancer.

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

[33]  H. Höfler,et al.  Decentral gene expression analysis for ER+/Her2− breast cancer: results of a proficiency testing program for the EndoPredict assay , 2012, Virchows Archiv.

[34]  K. Winzer,et al.  The EndoPredict Gene-Expression Assay in Clinical Practice - Performance and Impact on Clinical Decisions , 2013, PloS one.

[35]  M. Castiglione,et al.  Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[36]  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.

[37]  L. V. van't Veer,et al.  Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[38]  L. Pusztai,et al.  Multigene prognostic tests in breast cancer: past, present, future , 2015, Breast Cancer Research.

[39]  Sridhar Ramaswamy,et al.  Analysis of the MammaPrint Breast Cancer Assay in a Predominantly Postmenopausal Cohort , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[40]  A. Hart,et al.  Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer , 2009, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[41]  A. Glas,et al.  MammaPrint molecular diagnostics on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. , 2014, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[42]  Y. Bombard,et al.  The value of personalizing medicine: medical oncologists' views on gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment. , 2015, The oncologist.

[43]  Daniel F. Hayes,et al.  Indications for Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling in Early Breast Cancer , 2015, Current Treatment Options in Oncology.

[44]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

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

[46]  J. Wesseling,et al.  A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study , 2013, International journal of cancer.

[47]  Adrian V. Lee,et al.  Comparison of test results and clinical outcomes of patients assessed with both MammaPrint and Oncotype DX with pathologic variables: An independent study. , 2014 .

[48]  A. Witteveen,et al.  Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test , 2006, BMC Genomics.