PURPOSE: To compare risk assignment by PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier™ and Oncotype DX_Recurrence Score (RS) in the same population. METHODS: RNA was extracted from 151 estrogen receptor (ER)+ stage I-II breast cancers and gene expression profiled using PAM50 "intrinsic" subtyping test. RESULTS: One hundred eight cases had complete molecular information; 103 (95%) were classified as luminal A (n = 76) or luminal B (n = 27). Ninety-two percent (n = 98) had a low (n = 59) or intermediate (n = 39) RS. Among luminal A cancers, 70% had low (n = 53) and the remainder (n = 23) had an intermediate RS. Among luminal B cancers, nine were high (33%) and 13 were intermediate (48%) by the RS. Almost all cancers with a high RS were classified as luminal B (90%, n = 9). One high RS cancer was identified as basal-like and had low ER/ESR1 and low human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression by quantitative polymerase chain reaction in both assays. The majority of low RS cases were luminal A (83%, n = 53). Importantly, half of the intermediate RS cancers were re-categorized as low risk luminal A subtype by PAM50. CONCLUSION: There is good agreement between the two assays for high (i.e., luminal B or RS > 31) and low (i.e., luminal B or RS < 18) prognostic risk assignment but PAM50 assigns more patients to the low risk category. About half of the intermediate RS group was reclassified as luminal A by PAM50.
PURPOSE: To compare risk assignment by PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier™ and Oncotype DX_Recurrence Score (RS) in the same population. METHODS: RNA was extracted from 151 estrogen receptor (ER)+ stage I-II breast cancers and gene expression profiled using PAM50 "intrinsic" subtyping test. RESULTS: One hundred eight cases had complete molecular information; 103 (95%) were classified as luminal A (n = 76) or luminal B (n = 27). Ninety-two percent (n = 98) had a low (n = 59) or intermediate (n = 39) RS. Among luminal A cancers, 70% had low (n = 53) and the remainder (n = 23) had an intermediate RS. Among luminal B cancers, nine were high (33%) and 13 were intermediate (48%) by the RS. Almost all cancers with a high RS were classified as luminal B (90%, n = 9). One high RS cancer was identified as basal-like and had low ER/ESR1 and low humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression by quantitative polymerase chain reaction in both assays. The majority of low RS cases were luminal A (83%, n = 53). Importantly, half of the intermediate RS cancers were re-categorized as low risk luminal A subtype by PAM50. CONCLUSION: There is good agreement between the two assays for high (i.e., luminal B or RS > 31) and low (i.e., luminal B or RS < 18) prognostic risk assignment but PAM50 assigns more patients to the low risk category. About half of the intermediate RS group was reclassified as luminal A by PAM50.
Authors: James L Khatcheressian; Antonio C Wolff; Thomas J Smith; Eva Grunfeld; Hyman B Muss; Victor G Vogel; Francine Halberg; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Catherine M Kelly; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Giampaolo Bianchini; Jennifer K Litton; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ben S Wittner; Dennis C Sgroi; Paula D Ryan; Tako J Bruinsma; Annuska M Glas; Anitha Male; Sonika Dahiya; Karleen Habin; Rene Bernards; Daniel A Haber; Laura J Van't Veer; Sridhar Ramaswamy Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John M S Bartlett; Jeremy Thomas; Douglas T Ross; Robert S Seitz; Brian Z Ring; Rodney A Beck; Hans Christian Pedersen; Alison Munro; Ian H Kunkler; Fiona M Campbell; Wilma Jack; Gillian R Kerr; Laura Johnstone; David A Cameron; Udi Chetty Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Fathi Elloumi; Zhiyuan Hu; Yan Li; Joel S Parker; Margaret L Gulley; Keith D Amos; Melissa A Troester Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Michael Untch; Bernd Gerber; Nadia Harbeck; Christian Jackisch; Norbert Marschner; Volker Möbus; Gunter von Minckwitz; Sibylle Loibl; Matthias W Beckmann; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Serban-Dan Costa; Thomas Decker; Ingo Diel; Thomas Dimpfl; Wolfgang Eiermann; Tanja Fehm; Klaus Friese; Fritz Jänicke; Wolfgang Janni; Walter Jonat; Marion Kiechle; Uwe Köhler; Hans-Joachim Lück; Nicolai Maass; Kurt Possinger; Achim Rody; Anton Scharl; Andreas Schneeweiss; Christoph Thomssen; Diethelm Wallwiener; Anja Welt Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Andres Forero; Yufeng Li; Dongquan Chen; William E Grizzle; Katherine L Updike; Natalie D Merz; Erinn Downs-Kelly; Todd C Burwell; Christos Vaklavas; Donald J Buchsbaum; Richard M Myers; Albert F LoBuglio; Katherine E Varley Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 11.151
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: Carol Sweeney; Philip S Bernard; Rachel E Factor; Marilyn L Kwan; Laurel A Habel; Charles P Quesenberry; Kaylynn Shakespear; Erin K Weltzien; Inge J Stijleman; Carole A Davis; Mark T W Ebbert; Adrienne Castillo; Lawrence H Kushi; Bette J Caan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.254