BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the results of the Recurrence Score (RS) assay and the clinical response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. METHODS: Core biopsy samples at baseline and post-treatment surgical samples were obtained from 80 and 77 of 116 patients, respectively, enrolled in the multicenter prospective study of neoadjuvant exemestane therapy (JFMC34-0601). The 21-gene assay was performed after appropriate manual microdissection. The estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, HER2 and Ki-67 were assayed by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory. Clinical response was assessed based on the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) guideline. RESULTS: Sixty-four core biopsy samples and 52 resection samples met the RS quality requirements. The clinical response rate in those patients with a low RS result (low RS group; 19/32, 59.4 %) was significantly higher than that in those patients with a high RS result (high RS group; 3/15, 20.0 %) (P = 0.015) and similar to that in patients with an intermediate RS result (intermediate RS group; 10/17, 58.8 %). The rates of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were 90.6 % (29/32) in the low RS group, 76.5 % (13/17) in the intermediate RS group and 46.7 % (7/15) in the high RS group. The odds ratio for BCS adjusted for continuous baseline Ki-67 was 0.114 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.014-0.721; P = 0.028] between the high and low RS groups. RS values in pre-treatment samples were highly correlated with those in post-treatment samples (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.745, 95 % CI 0.592-0.846). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the predictive value of the RS for clinical response to neoadjuvant exemestane therapy in postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the results of the Recurrence Score (RS) assay and the clinical response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. METHODS: Core biopsy samples at baseline and post-treatment surgical samples were obtained from 80 and 77 of 116 patients, respectively, enrolled in the multicenter prospective study of neoadjuvant exemestane therapy (JFMC34-0601). The 21-gene assay was performed after appropriate manual microdissection. The estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, HER2 and Ki-67 were assayed by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory. Clinical response was assessed based on the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) guideline. RESULTS: Sixty-four core biopsy samples and 52 resection samples met the RS quality requirements. The clinical response rate in those patients with a low RS result (low RS group; 19/32, 59.4 %) was significantly higher than that in those patients with a high RS result (high RS group; 3/15, 20.0 %) (P = 0.015) and similar to that in patients with an intermediate RS result (intermediate RS group; 10/17, 58.8 %). The rates of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were 90.6 % (29/32) in the low RS group, 76.5 % (13/17) in the intermediate RS group and 46.7 % (7/15) in the high RS group. The odds ratio for BCS adjusted for continuous baseline Ki-67 was 0.114 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.014-0.721; P = 0.028] between the high and low RS groups. RS values in pre-treatment samples were highly correlated with those in post-treatment samples (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.745, 95 % CI 0.592-0.846). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the predictive value of the RS for clinical response to neoadjuvant exemestane therapy in postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer.
Authors: Jenny C Chang; Andreas Makris; M Carolina Gutierrez; Susan G Hilsenbeck; James R Hackett; Jennie Jeong; Mei-Lan Liu; Joffre Baker; Kim Clark-Langone; Frederick L Baehner; Krsytal Sexton; Syed Mohsin; Tara Gray; Laura Alvarez; Gary C Chamness; C Kent Osborne; Steven Shak Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-04-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Gong Tang; Steven Shak; Soonmyung Paik; Stewart J Anderson; Joseph P Costantino; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: L Mauriac; G MacGrogan; A Avril; M Durand; A Floquet; M Debled; J M Dilhuydy; F Bonichon Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harry D Bear; Wen Wan; André Robidoux; Peter Rubin; Steven Limentani; Richard L White; James Granfortuna; Judith O Hopkins; Dwight Oldham; Angel Rodriguez; Amy P Sing Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: J Michael Dixon; David A Cameron; Laura M Arthur; Deborah M Axelrod; Lorna Renshaw; Jeremy S Thomas; Arran Turnbull; Oliver Young; Cynthia A Loman; Debbie Jakubowski; Frederick L Baehner; Baljit Singh Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Tal Sella; Olga Kantor; Anna Weiss; Ann H Partridge; Otto Metzger; Tari A King Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 4.624