Literature DB >> 22015300

Is gene array testing to be considered routine now?

Soonmyung Paik1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are five multi-gene expression based prognostic tests for breast cancer offered as reference lab tests - Mammaprint, MapQuant Dx, OncotypeDx, PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Subtype Classifier, and Theros Breast Cancer Index. Each claims to provide additional prognostic information beyond conventional prognostic markers and to aid in determining who should receive systemic therapy. Evidence for their clinical utility was reviewed to determine whether any of them should be considered as routine clinical test.
METHODS: Peer reviewed publications, meeting abstracts, and information provided by company web sites have been reviewed to compile information regarding their clinical utility according to the following criteria; (1) Analytical validity and regulatory approval of the reference lab test. (2) Level of evidence for clinical utility. (3) Whether published evidences support prognostic and/or predictive claim.
RESULTS: While published evidences for clinical claims for OncotypeDx and Mammaprint used reference lab tests, and the supporting evidences for other tests come from academic assays before being converted to reference lab tests, results from two large randomized clinical trials testing the clinical utility of OncotypeDx and Mammaprint are still several years away and until that time none of the markers would reach level I evidence by Marker Utility Grading System. However Oncotype Dx has reached a level IB evidence according to Simon modification to Marker Utility Grading System. Therefore OncotypeDx may be considered for routine clinical use as an adjunct to clinical and pathological information and has been incorporated into clinical guidelines in USA. While Mammaprint, MapQuantDx, and PAM50 have been repeatedly demonstrated to provide robust prognostic information, evidence for its worth as a predictive marker for chemotherapy benefit is yet to come from randomize clinical trials and therefore its utility is limited to prognostication. Meta-analysis of publicly available microarray based gene expression studies demonstrated that gene expression assays provide similar information and the most important information they provide is the proliferation activity. In untreated population, the prognostic impact of proliferation genes is limited to ER+HER2- subset since HER2+ or ER-HER2- subsets are associated with high proliferation activity. Therefore the clinical utility of these gene expression based tests is mainly for ER+HER2- subset. Since they are usually treated with adjuvant anti-estrogen therapies, for their clinical utility, demonstration of the interaction between the gene expression markers and chemotherapy in anti-estrogen treated cohort in a randomized clinical trial would be required. While OncoytpeDx is the only test supported by studies in a randomized clinical trial for adjuvant chemotherapy, other gene expression based tests are expected to provide similar information. Gene expression profiling assays as more reproducible and precise surrogates for tumor grade (MapQauntDx and Theros Breast Cancer Index) are very promising assays. However, absence of definitive predefined cut-off for defining the subset that benefit from chemotherapy validated in cohorts from randomized trials limit their clinical application.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22015300     DOI: 10.1016/S0960-9776(11)70301-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  23 in total

Review 1.  Molecular and cellular heterogeneity in breast cancer: challenges for personalized medicine.

Authors:  Ashley G Rivenbark; Siobhan M O'Connor; William B Coleman
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 4.307

2.  The surgeon and molecular knowledge.

Authors:  Ravi Kant; Bina Ravi
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 0.656

3.  Identification of novel biomarkers associated with poor patient outcomes in invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Renata A Canevari; Fabio A Marchi; Maria A C Domingues; Victor Piana de Andrade; José R F Caldeira; Sergio Verjovski-Almeida; Silvia R Rogatto; Eduardo M Reis
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-08-02

Review 4.  An argument for mechanism-based statistical inference in cancer.

Authors:  Donald Geman; Michael Ochs; Nathan D Price; Cristian Tomasetti; Laurent Younes
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2014-11-09       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 5.  Translational bioinformatics: linking the molecular world to the clinical world.

Authors:  R B Altman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 6.  HER story: the next chapter in HER-2-directed therapy for advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Sunil Verma; Anil A Joy; Daniel Rayson; Deanna McLeod; Christine Brezden-Masley; Jean-François Boileau; Karen A Gelmon
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-11-08

7.  Metastasis-associated protein ribosomal RNA processing 1 homolog B (RRP1B) modulates metastasis through regulation of histone methylation.

Authors:  Minnkyong Lee; Amy M Dworkin; Jens Lichtenberg; Shashank J Patel; Niraj S Trivedi; Derek Gildea; David M Bodine; Nigel P S Crawford
Journal:  Mol Cancer Res       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 5.852

8.  Sample parameters affecting the clinical relevance of RNA biomarkers in translational breast cancer research.

Authors:  Vassiliki Kotoula; Konstantine T Kalogeras; George Kouvatseas; Despoina Televantou; Ralf Kronenwett; Ralph M Wirtz; George Fountzilas
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Epigenetics meets genetics in acute myeloid leukemia: clinical impact of a novel seven-gene score.

Authors:  Guido Marcucci; Pearlly Yan; Kati Maharry; David Frankhouser; Deedra Nicolet; Klaus H Metzeler; Jessica Kohlschmidt; Krzysztof Mrózek; Yue-Zhong Wu; Donna Bucci; John P Curfman; Susan P Whitman; Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld; Jason H Mendler; Sebastian Schwind; Heiko Becker; Constance Bär; Andrew J Carroll; Maria R Baer; Meir Wetzler; Thomas H Carter; Bayard L Powell; Jonathan E Kolitz; John C Byrd; Christoph Plass; Ramiro Garzon; Michael A Caligiuri; Richard M Stone; Stefano Volinia; Ralf Bundschuh; Clara D Bloomfield
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  A simple and reproducible breast cancer prognostic test.

Authors:  Luigi Marchionni; Bahman Afsari; Donald Geman; Jeffrey T Leek
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 3.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.