PURPOSE: The 70-gene prognosis signature (van't Veer et al., Nature 415(6871):530-536, 2002) may improve the selection of lymph node-negative breast cancer patients for adjuvant systemic therapy. Optimal validation of prognostic classifiers is of great importance and we therefore wished to evaluate the prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature in a series of relatively recently diagnosed lymph node negative breast cancer patients. METHODS: We evaluated the 70-gene prognosis signature in an independent representative series of patients with invasive breast cancer (N = 123; <55 years; pT1-2N0; diagnosed between 1996 and 1999; median follow-up 5.8 years) by classifying these patients as having a good or poor prognosis signature. In addition, we updated the follow-up of the node-negative patients of the previously published validation-series (Van de Vijver et al., N Engl J Med 347(25):1999-2009, 2002; N = 151; median follow-up 10.2 years). The prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature was compared with that of four commonly used clinicopathological risk indexes. The endpoints were distant metastasis (as first event) free percentage (DMFP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The 5-year OS was 82 +/- 5% in poor (48%) and 97 +/- 2% in good prognosis signature (52%) patients (HR 3.4; 95% CI 1.2-9.6; P = 0.021). The 5-years DMFP was 78 +/- 6% in poor and 98 +/- 2% in good prognosis signature patients (HR 5.7; 95% CI 1.6-20; P = 0.007). In the updated series (N = 151; 60% poor vs. 40% good), the 10-year OS was 51 +/- 5% and 94 +/- 3% (HR 10.7; 95% CI 3.9-30; P < 0.01), respectively. The DMFP was 50 +/- 6% in poor and 86 +/- 5% in good prognosis signature patients (HR 5.5; 95% CI 2.5-12; P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the prognosis signature was a strong independent prognostic factor in both series, outperforming the clinicopathological risk indexes. CONCLUSION: The 70-gene prognosis signature is also an independent prognostic factor in node-negative breast cancer patients for women diagnosed in recent years.
PURPOSE: The 70-gene prognosis signature (van't Veer et al., Nature 415(6871):530-536, 2002) may improve the selection of lymph node-negative breast cancerpatients for adjuvant systemic therapy. Optimal validation of prognostic classifiers is of great importance and we therefore wished to evaluate the prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature in a series of relatively recently diagnosed lymph node negative breast cancerpatients. METHODS: We evaluated the 70-gene prognosis signature in an independent representative series of patients with invasive breast cancer (N = 123; <55 years; pT1-2N0; diagnosed between 1996 and 1999; median follow-up 5.8 years) by classifying these patients as having a good or poor prognosis signature. In addition, we updated the follow-up of the node-negative patients of the previously published validation-series (Van de Vijver et al., N Engl J Med 347(25):1999-2009, 2002; N = 151; median follow-up 10.2 years). The prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature was compared with that of four commonly used clinicopathological risk indexes. The endpoints were distant metastasis (as first event) free percentage (DMFP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The 5-year OS was 82 +/- 5% in poor (48%) and 97 +/- 2% in good prognosis signature (52%) patients (HR 3.4; 95% CI 1.2-9.6; P = 0.021). The 5-years DMFP was 78 +/- 6% in poor and 98 +/- 2% in good prognosis signature patients (HR 5.7; 95% CI 1.6-20; P = 0.007). In the updated series (N = 151; 60% poor vs. 40% good), the 10-year OS was 51 +/- 5% and 94 +/- 3% (HR 10.7; 95% CI 3.9-30; P < 0.01), respectively. The DMFP was 50 +/- 6% in poor and 86 +/- 5% in good prognosis signature patients (HR 5.5; 95% CI 2.5-12; P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the prognosis signature was a strong independent prognostic factor in both series, outperforming the clinicopathological risk indexes. CONCLUSION: The 70-gene prognosis signature is also an independent prognostic factor in node-negative breast cancerpatients for women diagnosed in recent years.
Authors: Ian Krop; Nofisat Ismaila; Fabrice Andre; Robert C Bast; William Barlow; Deborah E Collyar; M Elizabeth Hammond; Nicole M Kuderer; Minetta C Liu; Robert G Mennel; Catherine Van Poznak; Antonio C Wolff; Vered Stearns Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 44.544
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: J M N Lopes Cardozo; M K Schmidt; L J van 't Veer; F Cardoso; C Poncet; E J T Rutgers; C A Drukker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.872