BACKGROUND: The aim of this article was to evaluate the prognostic value of the MammaPrint(TM) signature in women $$ 60 years with invasive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 female patients were included in this prospective study. Eligibility criteria included: pT1c-3, pN0-1a, grade 2/3, hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative tumor. The clinical risk was determined by Adjuvant! Online (AOL). RESULTS: 38 patients (63%) where considered to be low-risk patients by the 70-gene signature, while 22 (37%) were considered to be high-risk patients. No statistically significant differences between low- and high-risk groups could be detected for conventional prognostic parameters, particularly not for Ki-67. By AOL, 33 patients (55%) were considered to be at high risk, of which 20 had a discordant MammaPrint(TM) result. The discordance rate between the profile and AOL was 48%, which is higher than in previous publications. When the 70-gene signature was used in combination with the clinical risk assessment, the recommendation for adjuvant systemic treatment differed in 11 patients (18%). CONCLUSIONS: In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the 70-gene signature could be useful to decide in elderly patients whether they may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy or not. Conventional clinicopathological factors were not suitable for a prediction of the 70-gene signature results in these patients.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this article was to evaluate the prognostic value of the MammaPrint(TM) signature in women $$ 60 years with invasive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 female patients were included in this prospective study. Eligibility criteria included: pT1c-3, pN0-1a, grade 2/3, hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative tumor. The clinical risk was determined by Adjuvant! Online (AOL). RESULTS: 38 patients (63%) where considered to be low-risk patients by the 70-gene signature, while 22 (37%) were considered to be high-risk patients. No statistically significant differences between low- and high-risk groups could be detected for conventional prognostic parameters, particularly not for Ki-67. By AOL, 33 patients (55%) were considered to be at high risk, of which 20 had a discordant MammaPrint(TM) result. The discordance rate between the profile and AOL was 48%, which is higher than in previous publications. When the 70-gene signature was used in combination with the clinical risk assessment, the recommendation for adjuvant systemic treatment differed in 11 patients (18%). CONCLUSIONS: In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the 70-gene signature could be useful to decide in elderly patients whether they may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy or not. Conventional clinicopathological factors were not suitable for a prediction of the 70-gene signature results in these patients.
Authors: Stella Mook; Marjanka K Schmidt; Giuseppe Viale; Giancarlo Pruneri; Inge Eekhout; Arno Floore; Annuska M Glas; Jan Bogaerts; Fatima Cardoso; Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Emiel T Rutgers; Laura J Van't Veer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-07-27 Impact factor: 4.872
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: 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: S Mook; M K Schmidt; B Weigelt; B Kreike; I Eekhout; M J van de Vijver; A M Glas; A Floore; E J T Rutgers; L J van 't Veer Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jolien M Bueno-de-Mesquita; Wim H van Harten; Valesca P Retel; Laura J van 't Veer; Frits Sam van Dam; Kim Karsenberg; Kirsten Fl Douma; Harm van Tinteren; Johannes L Peterse; Jelle Wesseling; Tin S Wu; Douwe Atsma; Emiel Jt Rutgers; Guido Brink; Arno N Floore; Annuska M Glas; Rudi Mh Roumen; Frank E Bellot; Cees van Krimpen; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Marc J van de Vijver; Sabine C Linn Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Marc Buyse; Sherene Loi; Laura van't Veer; Giuseppe Viale; Mauro Delorenzi; Annuska M Glas; Mahasti Saghatchian d'Assignies; Jonas Bergh; Rosette Lidereau; Paul Ellis; Adrian Harris; Jan Bogaerts; Patrick Therasse; Arno Floore; Mohamed Amakrane; Fanny Piette; Emiel Rutgers; Christos Sotiriou; Fatima Cardoso; Martine J Piccart Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Philip F Halloran; Jessica Chang; Konrad Famulski; Luis G Hidalgo; Israel D R Salazar; Maribel Merino Lopez; Arthur Matas; Michael Picton; Declan de Freitas; Jonathan Bromberg; Daniel Serón; Joana Sellarés; Gunilla Einecke; Jeff Reeve Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 10.121