PURPOSE: The 21-gene breast cancer assay recurrence score (RS) is widely used for assessing recurrence risk and predicting chemotherapy benefit in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive breast cancer. Pathologic and clinical factors such as tumor size, grade, and patient age also provide independent prognostic utility. We developed a formal integration of these measures and evaluated its prognostic and predictive value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) B-14 and translational research cohort of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) studies, we included patients who received hormonal monotherapy, had ER-positive tumors, and RS and traditional clinicopathologic factors assessed (647 and 1,088, respectively). Individual patient risk assessments from separate Cox models were combined using meta-analysis to form an RS-pathology-clinical (RSPC) assessment of distant recurrence risk. Risk assessments by RS and RSPC were compared in node-negative (N0) patients. RSPC was compared with RS for predicting chemotherapy benefit in NSABP B-20. RESULTS: RSPC had significantly more prognostic value for distant recurrence than did RS (P < .001) and showed better separation of risk in the study population. RSPC classified fewer patients as intermediate risk (17.8% v 26.7%, P < .001) and more patients as lower risk (63.8% v 54.2%, P < .001) than did RS among 1,444 N0 ER-positive patients. In B-20, the interaction of RSPC with chemotherapy was not statistically significant (P = .10), in contrast to the previously reported significant interaction of RS with chemotherapy (P = .037). CONCLUSION: RSPC refines the assessment of distant recurrence risk and reduces the number of patients classified as intermediate risk. Adding clinicopathologic measures did not seem to enhance the value of RS alone nor the individual biology RS identifies in predicting chemotherapy benefit.
PURPOSE: The 21-gene breast cancer assay recurrence score (RS) is widely used for assessing recurrence risk and predicting chemotherapy benefit in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive breast cancer. Pathologic and clinical factors such as tumor size, grade, and patient age also provide independent prognostic utility. We developed a formal integration of these measures and evaluated its prognostic and predictive value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) B-14 and translational research cohort of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) studies, we included patients who received hormonal monotherapy, had ER-positive tumors, and RS and traditional clinicopathologic factors assessed (647 and 1,088, respectively). Individual patient risk assessments from separate Cox models were combined using meta-analysis to form an RS-pathology-clinical (RSPC) assessment of distant recurrence risk. Risk assessments by RS and RSPC were compared in node-negative (N0) patients. RSPC was compared with RS for predicting chemotherapy benefit in NSABP B-20. RESULTS: RSPC had significantly more prognostic value for distant recurrence than did RS (P < .001) and showed better separation of risk in the study population. RSPC classified fewer patients as intermediate risk (17.8% v 26.7%, P < .001) and more patients as lower risk (63.8% v 54.2%, P < .001) than did RS among 1,444 N0 ER-positive patients. In B-20, the interaction of RSPC with chemotherapy was not statistically significant (P = .10), in contrast to the previously reported significant interaction of RS with chemotherapy (P = .037). CONCLUSION: RSPC refines the assessment of distant recurrence risk and reduces the number of patients classified as intermediate risk. Adding clinicopathologic measures did not seem to enhance the value of RS alone nor the individual biology RS identifies in predicting chemotherapy benefit.
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Gong Tang; Steven Shak; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Wanseop Kim; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Drew Watson; John Bryant; Joseph P Costantino; Charles E Geyer; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-23 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: Kathy S Albain; William E Barlow; Steven Shak; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Robert B Livingston; I-Tien Yeh; Peter Ravdin; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Nancy E Davidson; George W Sledge; Eric P Winer; Clifford Hudis; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; Kathleen I Pritchard; Lois Shepherd; Julie R Gralow; Carl Yoshizawa; D Craig Allred; C Kent Osborne; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lori J Goldstein; Robert Gray; Sunil Badve; Barrett H Childs; Carl Yoshizawa; Steve Rowley; Steven Shak; Frederick L Baehner; Peter M Ravdin; Nancy E Davidson; George W Sledge; Edith A Perez; Lawrence N Shulman; Silvana Martino; Joseph A Sparano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B Fisher; J Costantino; C Redmond; R Poisson; D Bowman; J Couture; N V Dimitrov; N Wolmark; D L Wickerham; E R Fisher Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laurel A Habel; Steven Shak; Marlena K Jacobs; Angela Capra; Claire Alexander; Mylan Pho; Joffre Baker; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; James Hackett; Noelle T Blick; Deborah Greenberg; Louis Fehrenbacher; Bryan Langholz; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2006-05-31 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Maura Bríd Cotter; Alex Dakin; Aoife Maguire; Janice M Walshe; M John Kennedy; Barbara Dunne; Ciarán Ó Riain; Cecily M Quinn Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: H A Azim; S Michiels; F Zagouri; S Delaloge; M Filipits; M Namer; P Neven; W F Symmans; A Thompson; F André; S Loi; C Swanton Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-01-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Peter M Ravdin; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Calvin Chao; Huei-Ting Tsai; Chunfu Liu; Bola F Ekezue; Nandini Selvam; Larry G Kessler; Marc D Schwartz; Tania Lobo; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 11.908