PURPOSE: A number of microarray studies have reported distinct molecular profiles of breast cancers (BC), such as basal-like, ErbB2-like, and two to three luminal-like subtypes. These were associated with different clinical outcomes. However, although the basal and the ErbB2 subtypes are repeatedly recognized, identification of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive subtypes has been inconsistent. Therefore, refinement of their molecular definition is needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have previously reported a gene expression grade index (GGI), which defines histologic grade based on gene expression profiles. Using this algorithm, we assigned ER-positive BC to either high-or low-genomic grade subgroups and compared these with previously reported ER-positive molecular classifications. As further validation, we classified 666 ER-positive samples into subtypes and assessed their clinical outcome. RESULTS: Two ER-positive molecular subgroups (high and low genomic grade) could be defined using the GGI. Despite tracking a single biologic pathway, these were highly comparable to the previously described luminal A and B classification and significantly correlated to the risk groups produced using the 21-gene recurrence score. The two subtypes were associated with statistically distinct clinical outcome in both systemically untreated and tamoxifen-treated populations. CONCLUSION: The use of genomic grade can identify two clinically distinct ER-positive molecular subtypes in a simple and highly reproducible manner across multiple data sets. This study emphasizes the important role of proliferation-related genes in predicting prognosis in ER-positive BC.
PURPOSE: A number of microarray studies have reported distinct molecular profiles of breast cancers (BC), such as basal-like, ErbB2-like, and two to three luminal-like subtypes. These were associated with different clinical outcomes. However, although the basal and the ErbB2 subtypes are repeatedly recognized, identification of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive subtypes has been inconsistent. Therefore, refinement of their molecular definition is needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have previously reported a gene expression grade index (GGI), which defines histologic grade based on gene expression profiles. Using this algorithm, we assigned ER-positive BC to either high-or low-genomic grade subgroups and compared these with previously reported ER-positive molecular classifications. As further validation, we classified 666 ER-positive samples into subtypes and assessed their clinical outcome. RESULTS: Two ER-positive molecular subgroups (high and low genomic grade) could be defined using the GGI. Despite tracking a single biologic pathway, these were highly comparable to the previously described luminal A and B classification and significantly correlated to the risk groups produced using the 21-gene recurrence score. The two subtypes were associated with statistically distinct clinical outcome in both systemically untreated and tamoxifen-treated populations. CONCLUSION: The use of genomic grade can identify two clinically distinct ER-positive molecular subtypes in a simple and highly reproducible manner across multiple data sets. This study emphasizes the important role of proliferation-related genes in predicting prognosis in ER-positive BC.
Authors: Rong Hu; Anni Warri; Lu Jin; Alan Zwart; Rebecca B Riggins; Hong-Bin Fang; Robert Clarke Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Sherene Loi; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Samira Majjaj; Francoise Lallemand; Virginie Durbecq; Denis Larsimont; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Lajos Pusztai; W Fraser Symmans; Alberto Bardelli; Paul Ellis; Andrew N J Tutt; Cheryl E Gillett; Bryan T Hennessy; Gordon B Mills; Wayne A Phillips; Martine J Piccart; Terence P Speed; Grant A McArthur; Christos Sotiriou Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Igor Shats; Michael L Gatza; Jeffrey T Chang; Seiichi Mori; Jialiang Wang; Jeremy Rich; Joseph R Nevins Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: P Sinn; S Aulmann; R Wirtz; S Schott; F Marmé; Z Varga; A Lebeau; H Kreipe; A Schneeweiss Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Claudia Palena; Mario Roselli; Mary T Litzinger; Patrizia Ferroni; Leopoldo Costarelli; Antonella Spila; Francesco Cavaliere; Bruce Huang; Romaine I Fernando; Duane H Hamilton; Caroline Jochems; Kwong-Yok Tsang; Qing Cheng; H Kim Lyerly; Jeffrey Schlom; Fiorella Guadagni Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 13.506