UNLABELLED: PURPOSE To improve on current standards for breast cancer prognosis and prediction of chemotherapy benefit by developing a risk model that incorporates the gene expression-based "intrinsic" subtypes luminal A, luminal B, HER2-enriched, and basal-like. METHODS A 50-gene subtype predictor was developed using microarray and quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction data from 189 prototype samples. Test sets from 761 patients (no systemic therapy) were evaluated for prognosis, and 133 patients were evaluated for prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR) to a taxane and anthracycline regimen. RESULTS: The intrinsic subtypes as discrete entities showed prognostic significance (P = 2.26E-12) and remained significant in multivariable analyses that incorporated standard parameters (estrogen receptor status, histologic grade, tumor size, and node status). A prognostic model for node-negative breast cancer was built using intrinsic subtype and clinical information. The C-index estimate for the combined model (subtype and tumor size) was a significant improvement on either the clinicopathologic model or subtype model alone. The intrinsic subtype model predicted neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy with a negative predictive value for pCR of 97%. CONCLUSION Diagnosis by intrinsic subtype adds significant prognostic and predictive information to standard parameters for patients with breast cancer. The prognostic properties of the continuous risk score will be of value for the management of node-negative breast cancers. The subtypes and risk score can also be used to assess the likelihood of efficacy from neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
UNLABELLED: PURPOSE To improve on current standards for breast cancer prognosis and prediction of chemotherapy benefit by developing a risk model that incorporates the gene expression-based "intrinsic" subtypes luminal A, luminal B, HER2-enriched, and basal-like. METHODS A 50-gene subtype predictor was developed using microarray and quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction data from 189 prototype samples. Test sets from 761 patients (no systemic therapy) were evaluated for prognosis, and 133 patients were evaluated for prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR) to a taxane and anthracycline regimen. RESULTS: The intrinsic subtypes as discrete entities showed prognostic significance (P = 2.26E-12) and remained significant in multivariable analyses that incorporated standard parameters (estrogen receptor status, histologic grade, tumor size, and node status). A prognostic model for node-negative breast cancer was built using intrinsic subtype and clinical information. The C-index estimate for the combined model (subtype and tumor size) was a significant improvement on either the clinicopathologic model or subtype model alone. The intrinsic subtype model predicted neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy with a negative predictive value for pCR of 97%. CONCLUSION Diagnosis by intrinsic subtype adds significant prognostic and predictive information to standard parameters for patients with breast cancer. The prognostic properties of the continuous risk score will be of value for the management of node-negative breast cancers. The subtypes and risk score can also be used to assess the likelihood of efficacy from neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Roman Rouzier; Lajos Pusztai; Suzette Delaloge; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Fabrice Andre; Kenneth R Hess; Aman U Buzdar; Jean-Remi Garbay; Marc Spielmann; Marie-Christine Mathieu; W Fraser Symmans; Peter Wagner; David Atallah; Vicente Valero; Donald A Berry; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Augustinus A M Hart; Dorien W Voskuil; George J Schreiber; Johannes L Peterse; Chris Roberts; Matthew J Marton; Mark Parrish; Douwe Atsma; Anke Witteveen; Annuska Glas; Leonie Delahaye; Tony van der Velde; Harry Bartelink; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel T Rutgers; Stephen H Friend; René Bernards Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Therese Sorlie; Robert Tibshirani; Joel Parker; Trevor Hastie; J S Marron; Andrew Nobel; Shibing Deng; Hilde Johnsen; Robert Pesich; Stephanie Geisler; Janos Demeter; Charles M Perou; Per E Lønning; Patrick O Brown; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; David Botstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Lisa A Carey; Hope S Rugo; P Kelly Marcom; Erica L Mayer; Francisco J Esteva; Cynthia X Ma; Minetta C Liu; Anna Maria Storniolo; Mothaffar F Rimawi; Andres Forero-Torres; Antonio C Wolff; Timothy J Hobday; Anastasia Ivanova; Wing-Keung Chiu; Madlyn Ferraro; Emily Burrows; Philip S Bernard; Katherine A Hoadley; Charles M Perou; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Josie Ursini-Siegel; Sean Cory; Dongmei Zuo; William R Hardy; Elton Rexhepaj; Sonya Lam; Babette Schade; Karin Jirstrom; Eva Bjur; Ciriaco A Piccirillo; David Denardo; Lisa M Coussens; Donal J Brennan; William M Gallagher; Morag Park; Tony Pawson; Michael Hallett; William J Muller Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Nyam-Osor Chimge; Sanjeev K Baniwal; Jingqin Luo; Simon Coetzee; Omar Khalid; Benjamin P Berman; Debu Tripathy; Matthew J Ellis; Baruch Frenkel Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jing Li; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Pamela K Allen; Tse K Yu; Wendy A Woodward; Naoto T Ueno; Anthony Lucci; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Yun Gong; Melissa L Bondy; Wei Yang; Jie S Willey; Massimo Cristofanilli; Vicente Valero; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-12-06
Authors: Maki Tanioka; Cheng Fan; Joel S Parker; Katherine A Hoadley; Zhiyuan Hu; Yan Li; Terry M Hyslop; Brandelyn N Pitcher; Matthew G Soloway; Patricia A Spears; Lynn N Henry; Sara Tolaney; Chau T Dang; Ian E Krop; Lyndsay N Harris; Donald A Berry; Elaine R Mardis; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Erik R Nelson; Suzanne E Wardell; Jeff S Jasper; Sunghee Park; Sunil Suchindran; Matthew K Howe; Nicole J Carver; Ruchita V Pillai; Patrick M Sullivan; Varun Sondhi; Michihisa Umetani; Joseph Geradts; Donald P McDonnell Journal: Science Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Elizabeth J Pereira; Joseph S Burns; Christina Y Lee; Taylor Marohl; Delia Calderon; Lixin Wang; Kristen A Atkins; Chun-Chao Wang; Kevin A Janes Journal: Sci Signal Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 8.192
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