BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of histologic grade (HG) in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) remains uncertain, and most ILC tumors are graded as HG2. Genomic grade (GG) is a 97-gene signature that improves the prognostic value of HG. This study evaluates whether GG may overcome the limitations of HG in ILC. METHODS: Gene expression data were generated from frozen tumor samples, and GG calculated according to the expression of 97 genes. The prognostic value of GG was assessed in a stratified Cox regression model for invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were classified by GG. HG classified 33 (20%) tumors as HG1, 120 (73%) as HG2 and 12 (7%) as HG3. GG classified 106 (64%) tumors as GG low (GG1), 29 (17%) as GG high (GG3) and 31 (19%) as equivocal (cases not classified as GG1 or GG3). The median follow-up time was 6.5 years. In multivariate analyses, GG was associated with IDFS [HR(GG3 vs GG1) 5.6 (2.1-15.3); P < 0.001] and OS [HR(GG3 vs GG1) 7.2, 95% CI (1.6-32.2); P = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: GG outperformed HG in ILC and added prognostic value to classic clinicopathologic variables, including nodal status.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of histologic grade (HG) in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) remains uncertain, and most ILC tumors are graded as HG2. Genomic grade (GG) is a 97-gene signature that improves the prognostic value of HG. This study evaluates whether GG may overcome the limitations of HG in ILC. METHODS: Gene expression data were generated from frozen tumor samples, and GG calculated according to the expression of 97 genes. The prognostic value of GG was assessed in a stratified Cox regression model for invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were classified by GG. HG classified 33 (20%) tumors as HG1, 120 (73%) as HG2 and 12 (7%) as HG3. GG classified 106 (64%) tumors as GG low (GG1), 29 (17%) as GG high (GG3) and 31 (19%) as equivocal (cases not classified as GG1 or GG3). The median follow-up time was 6.5 years. In multivariate analyses, GG was associated with IDFS [HR(GG3 vs GG1) 5.6 (2.1-15.3); P < 0.001] and OS [HR(GG3 vs GG1) 7.2, 95% CI (1.6-32.2); P = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: GG outperformed HG in ILC and added prognostic value to classic clinicopathologic variables, including nodal status.
Authors: Otto Metzger Filho; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Elizabeth Mallon; Barry Gusterson; Giuseppe Viale; Eric P Winer; Beat Thürlimann; Richard D Gelber; Marco Colleoni; Bent Ejlertsen; Marc Debled; Karen N Price; Meredith M Regan; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Max A K Rätze; Thijs Koorman; Thijmen Sijnesael; Blessing Bassey-Archibong; Robert van de Ven; Lotte Enserink; Daan Visser; Sridevi Jaksani; Ignacio Viciano; Elvira R M Bakker; François Richard; Andrew Tutt; Lynda O'Leary; Amanda Fitzpatrick; Pere Roca-Cusachs; Paul J van Diest; Christine Desmedt; Juliet M Daniel; Clare M Isacke; Patrick W B Derksen Journal: Oncogene Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 8.756
Authors: Otto Metzger-Filho; Aurélie Catteau; Stefan Michiels; Marc Buyse; Michail Ignatiadis; Kamal S Saini; Evandro de Azambuja; Virginie Fasolo; Sihem Naji; Jean Luc Canon; Paul Delrée; Michel Coibion; Pino Cusumano; Veronique Jossa; Jean Pierre Kains; Denis Larsimont; Vincent Richard; Daniel Faverly; Nathalie Cornez; Peter Vuylsteke; Brigitte Vanderschueren; Hélène Peyro-Saint-Paul; Martine Piccart; Christos Sotiriou Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lisette M Cornelissen; Anne Paulien Drenth; Eline van der Burg; Roebi de Bruijn; Colin E J Pritchard; Ivo J Huijbers; Wilbert Zwart; Jos Jonkers Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 11.361