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.

PURPOSE To compare risk assignment by PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier™ and Oncotype DX_Recurrence Score (RS) in the same population. METHODS RNA was extracted from 151 estrogen receptor (ER)+ stage I-II breast cancers and gene expression profiled using PAM50 "intrinsic" subtyping test. RESULTS One hundred eight cases had complete molecular information; 103 (95%) were classified as luminal A (n = 76) or luminal B (n = 27). Ninety-two percent (n = 98) had a low (n = 59) or intermediate (n = 39) RS. Among luminal A cancers, 70% had low (n = 53) and the remainder (n = 23) had an intermediate RS. Among luminal B cancers, nine were high (33%) and 13 were intermediate (48%) by the RS. Almost all cancers with a high RS were classified as luminal B (90%, n = 9). One high RS cancer was identified as basal-like and had low ER/ESR1 and low human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression by quantitative polymerase chain reaction in both assays. The majority of low RS cases were luminal A (83%, n = 53). Importantly, half of the intermediate RS cancers were re-categorized as low risk luminal A subtype by PAM50. CONCLUSION There is good agreement between the two assays for high (i.e., luminal B or RS > 31) and low (i.e., luminal B or RS < 18) prognostic risk assignment but PAM50 assigns more patients to the low risk category. About half of the intermediate RS group was reclassified as luminal A by PAM50.

[1]  W. Alexander,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology , 2020, Definitions.

[2]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  First generation prognostic gene signatures for breast cancer predict both survival and chemotherapy sensitivity and identify overlapping patient populations , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[3]  Zhiyuan Hu,et al.  Systematic Bias in Genomic Classification Due to Contaminating Non-neoplastic Tissue in Breast Tumor Samples , 2011, BMC Medical Genomics.

[4]  M. Cuadros,et al.  Validez clínica y analítica de MammaPrint® en tratamiento del cáncer de mama , 2011 .

[5]  M. Erlander,et al.  The role of the genomic breast cancer index in predicting pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline plus taxane. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  N. Harbeck,et al.  St. Gallen 2011: Summary of the Consensus Discussion , 2011, Breast Care.

[7]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Utility of oncotype DX risk estimates in clinically intermediate risk hormone receptor‐positive, HER2‐normal, grade II, lymph node‐negative breast cancers , 2010, Cancer.

[8]  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.

[9]  Hans Christian Pedersen,et al.  Mammostrat® as a tool to stratify breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence during endocrine therapy , 2010, Breast Cancer Research.

[10]  J. Ross,et al.  MammaPrint™ 70-gene signature: another milestone in personalized medical care for breast cancer patients , 2009, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  R. Salunga,et al.  A Five-Gene Molecular Grade Index and HOXB13:IL17BR Are Complementary Prognostic Factors in Early Stage Breast Cancer , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  S. Paik Development and clinical utility of a 21-gene recurrence score prognostic assay in patients with early breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. , 2007, The oncologist.

[16]  Stella Mook,et al.  Individualization of therapy using Mammaprint: from development to the MINDACT Trial. , 2007, Cancer genomics & proteomics.

[17]  J. Bergh,et al.  Definition of clinically distinct molecular subtypes in estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas through genomic grade. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  Thomas J. Smith,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[20]  M. Cronin,et al.  Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  E. Winer,et al.  NCCN Task Force Report: Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer. , 2006, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[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]  C. Sotiriou,et al.  Genomic Grade Index: An important tool for assessing breast cancer tumor grade and prognosis. , 2011, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[24]  F. Monzon A Multigene Assay to Predict Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated, Node-Negative Breast Cancer , 2006 .

[25]  J. Haerting,et al.  Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.