PURPOSE: Risk of distant recurrence (DR) among women with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive early breast cancer is the major determinant of recommendations for or against chemotherapy. It is frequently estimated using the Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS). The PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score provides an alternative approach, which also identifies intrinsic subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mRNA from 1,017 patients with ER-positive primary breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen in the ATAC trial was assessed for ROR using the NanoString nCounter. Likelihood ratio (LR) tests and concordance indices (c indices) were used to assess the prognostic information provided beyond that of a clinical treatment score (CTS) by RS, ROR, or IHC4, an index of DR risk derived from immunohistochemical assessment of ER, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki67. RESULTS: ROR added significant prognostic information beyond CTS in all patients (Δ LR-χ(2) = 33.9; P < .001) and in all four subgroups: node negative, node positive, HER2 negative, and HER2 negative/node negative; more information was added by ROR than by RS. C indices in the HER2-negative/node-negative subgroup were 0.73, 0.76, and 0.78 for CTS, CTS plus RS, and CTS plus ROR, respectively. More patients were scored as high risk and fewer as intermediate risk by ROR than by RS. Relatively similar prognostic information was added by ROR and IHC4 in all patients but more by ROR in the HER2-negative/node-negative group. CONCLUSION: ROR provides more prognostic information in endocrine-treated patients with ER-positive, node-negative disease than RS, with better differentiation of intermediate- and higher-risk groups.
PURPOSE: Risk of distant recurrence (DR) among women with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive early breast cancer is the major determinant of recommendations for or against chemotherapy. It is frequently estimated using the Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS). The PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score provides an alternative approach, which also identifies intrinsic subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mRNA from 1,017 patients with ER-positive primary breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen in the ATAC trial was assessed for ROR using the NanoString nCounter. Likelihood ratio (LR) tests and concordance indices (c indices) were used to assess the prognostic information provided beyond that of a clinical treatment score (CTS) by RS, ROR, or IHC4, an index of DR risk derived from immunohistochemical assessment of ER, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki67. RESULTS: ROR added significant prognostic information beyond CTS in all patients (Δ LR-χ(2) = 33.9; P < .001) and in all four subgroups: node negative, node positive, HER2 negative, and HER2 negative/node negative; more information was added by ROR than by RS. C indices in the HER2-negative/node-negative subgroup were 0.73, 0.76, and 0.78 for CTS, CTS plus RS, and CTS plus ROR, respectively. More patients were scored as high risk and fewer as intermediate risk by ROR than by RS. Relatively similar prognostic information was added by ROR and IHC4 in all patients but more by ROR in the HER2-negative/node-negative group. CONCLUSION: ROR provides more prognostic information in endocrine-treated patients with ER-positive, node-negative disease than RS, with better differentiation of intermediate- and higher-risk groups.
Authors: M C Chang; L H Souter; S Kamel-Reid; M Rutherford; P Bedard; M Trudeau; J Hart; A Eisen Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Maggie C U Cheang; Miguel Martin; Torsten O Nielsen; Aleix Prat; David Voduc; Alvaro Rodriguez-Lescure; Amparo Ruiz; Stephen Chia; Lois Shepherd; Manuel Ruiz-Borrego; Lourdes Calvo; Emilio Alba; Eva Carrasco; Rosalia Caballero; Dongsheng Tu; Kathleen I Pritchard; Mark N Levine; Vivien H Bramwell; Joel Parker; Philip S Bernard; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Angelo Di Leo; Lisa A Carey Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-04-23
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Claudette Falato; Nicholas P Tobin; Julie Lorent; Linda S Lindström; Jonas Bergh; Theodoros Foukakis Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 6.603