PURPOSE: To assess the benefit from adjuvant systemic tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer risk groups identified by the previously established prognostic 76-gene signature. METHODS: In 300 lymph node-negative (LNN), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients (136 treated with adjuvant tamoxifen, 164 having received no systemic adjuvant therapy), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a function of the 76-gene signature was determined in a multicenter fashion. RESULTS: In 136 tamoxifen-treated patients, the 76-gene signature identified a group of patients with a poor prognosis [hazard ratio (HR), 4.62; P = 0.0248]. These patients showed a 12.3% absolute benefit of tamoxifen in 10-year DMFS (HR, 0.52; P = 0.0318) compared with untreated high-risk patients. This represented a 71% increase in relative benefit compared with the 7.2% absolute benefit observed for all 300 patients without using the gene signature. In the low-risk group there was no significant 10-year DMFS benefit of tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients who benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Although we did not study the value of chemotherapy in this study, low-risk patients identified by the 76-gene signature have a prognosis good enough that chemotherapy would be difficult to justify. The prognosis of these patients is sufficiently good, in fact, that a disease-free benefit for tamoxifen therapy is difficult to prove, though benefits in terms of loco-regional relapse and a reduction in risk for contralateral breast cancer might justify hormonal therapy in these patients.
PURPOSE: To assess the benefit from adjuvant systemic tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer risk groups identified by the previously established prognostic 76-gene signature. METHODS: In 300 lymph node-negative (LNN), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancerpatients (136 treated with adjuvant tamoxifen, 164 having received no systemic adjuvant therapy), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a function of the 76-gene signature was determined in a multicenter fashion. RESULTS: In 136 tamoxifen-treated patients, the 76-gene signature identified a group of patients with a poor prognosis [hazard ratio (HR), 4.62; P = 0.0248]. These patients showed a 12.3% absolute benefit of tamoxifen in 10-year DMFS (HR, 0.52; P = 0.0318) compared with untreated high-risk patients. This represented a 71% increase in relative benefit compared with the 7.2% absolute benefit observed for all 300 patients without using the gene signature. In the low-risk group there was no significant 10-year DMFS benefit of tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients who benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Although we did not study the value of chemotherapy in this study, low-risk patients identified by the 76-gene signature have a prognosis good enough that chemotherapy would be difficult to justify. The prognosis of these patients is sufficiently good, in fact, that a disease-free benefit for tamoxifen therapy is difficult to prove, though benefits in terms of loco-regional relapse and a reduction in risk for contralateral breast cancer might justify hormonal therapy in these patients.
Authors: V Thewes; R Simon; M Hlevnjak; M Schlotter; P Schroeter; K Schmidt; Y Wu; T Anzeneder; W Wang; P Windisch; M Kirchgäßner; N Melling; N Kneisel; R Büttner; U Deuschle; H P Sinn; A Schneeweiss; S Heck; S Kaulfuss; H Hess-Stumpp; J G Okun; G Sauter; A E Lykkesfeldt; M Zapatka; B Radlwimmer; P Lichter; M Tönjes Journal: Oncogene Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Bailiang Li; Yang Li; Xiao-Yu Wang; Zi-Qiao Yan; Huidi Liu; Gui-Rong Liu; Shu-Lin Liu Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Christina Y Yim; Emmanuel Bikorimana; Ema Khan; Joshua M Warzecha; Leah Shin; Jennifer Rodriguez; Ethan Dmitrovsky; Sarah J Freemantle; Michael J Spinella Journal: Cell Cycle Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.534
Authors: Leena Hilakivi-Clarke; Anni Wärri; Kerrie B Bouker; Xiyuan Zhang; Katherine L Cook; Lu Jin; Alan Zwart; Nguyen Nguyen; Rong Hu; M Idalia Cruz; Sonia de Assis; Xiao Wang; Jason Xuan; Yue Wang; Bryan Wehrenberg; Robert Clarke Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Zhao Zhang; Mauro E Cenciarini; Cecilia J Proietti; Yanming Wu; Matias Amasino; Tao Hong; Mei Yang; Yiji Liao; Huai-Chin Chiang; Virginia G Kaklamani; Rinath Jeselsohn; Ratna K Vadlamudi; Tim Hui-Ming Huang; Rong Li; Carmine De Angelis; Xiaoyong Fu; Patricia V Elizalde; Rachel Schiff; Myles Brown; Kexin Xu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Qiyuan Li; Aron C Eklund; Nicolai Juul; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Christopher T Workman; Andrea L Richardson; Zoltan Szallasi; Charles Swanton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Karen J Taylor; Andrew H Sims; Liang Liang; Dana Faratian; Morwenna Muir; Graeme Walker; Barbara Kuske; J Michael Dixon; David A Cameron; David J Harrison; Simon P Langdon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 6.466