G Viale1, L Slaets2, J Bogaerts2, E Rutgers3, L Van't Veer4, M J Piccart-Gebhart5, F A de Snoo6, L Stork-Sloots6, L Russo7, P Dell'Orto7, J van den Akker8, A Glas8, F Cardoso9. 1. Department of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology and University of Milan, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: giuseppe.viale@ieo.it. 2. Department of Statistics, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. 4. Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; Research and Development, Agendia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Medical Affairs, Agendia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology and University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 8. Research and Development, Agendia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Breast Unit, Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the correlation of TargetPrint with local and central immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of estrogen (ER), progesterone (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in the first 800 patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from local (N = 800) and central (N = 626) assessments of receptor status were collected and compared with TargetPrint results. RESULTS: For ER, the positive agreement (the percentage of central pathology positive assessments that were also TargetPrint/local laboratory positive) for TargetPrint in comparison to centralized assessment was 98% with a negative agreement (the percentage of central pathology negative assessments that were also TargetPrint/local laboratory negative) of 96%. For PgR, the positive agreement was 83% with a negative agreement of 92%. For HER2, the positive agreement was 75% with a negative agreement of 99%. Even though the local assessment showed higher positive agreement for PgR (89%) and higher positive agreement for HER2 (85%), the range of discordant local versus central assessments were as high as 6.7% for ER, 12.9% for PgR, and 4.3% for HER2. CONCLUSION: TargetPrint and local assessment of ER, PgR, and HER2 show high concordance with central assessment in the first 800 MINDACT patients. However, there are concerns about the higher discordance rates for some local sites. TargetPrint can improve the reliability of hormone receptor and HER2 testing for those centers with a lower rate of concordance with the reference laboratory, with the limitation of a positive agreement of 75% for HER2. TargetPrint consequently has important implications for treatment decisions in clinical practice and is a reliable alternative to local assessment for ER. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00433589.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the correlation of TargetPrint with local and central immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of estrogen (ER), progesterone (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in the first 800 patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from local (N = 800) and central (N = 626) assessments of receptor status were collected and compared with TargetPrint results. RESULTS: For ER, the positive agreement (the percentage of central pathology positive assessments that were also TargetPrint/local laboratory positive) for TargetPrint in comparison to centralized assessment was 98% with a negative agreement (the percentage of central pathology negative assessments that were also TargetPrint/local laboratory negative) of 96%. For PgR, the positive agreement was 83% with a negative agreement of 92%. For HER2, the positive agreement was 75% with a negative agreement of 99%. Even though the local assessment showed higher positive agreement for PgR (89%) and higher positive agreement for HER2 (85%), the range of discordant local versus central assessments were as high as 6.7% for ER, 12.9% for PgR, and 4.3% for HER2. CONCLUSION: TargetPrint and local assessment of ER, PgR, and HER2 show high concordance with central assessment in the first 800 MINDACT patients. However, there are concerns about the higher discordance rates for some local sites. TargetPrint can improve the reliability of hormone receptor and HER2 testing for those centers with a lower rate of concordance with the reference laboratory, with the limitation of a positive agreement of 75% for HER2. TargetPrint consequently has important implications for treatment decisions in clinical practice and is a reliable alternative to local assessment for ER. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00433589.
Entities:
Keywords:
FISH; IHC; TargetPrint; breast cancer; concordance; hormone receptor
Authors: J Bergqvist; J F Ohd; J Smeds; S Klaar; J Isola; H Nordgren; G P Elmberger; H Hellborg; J Bjohle; A-L Borg; L Skoog; J Bergh Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-03-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Annuska M Glas; Arno Floore; Leonie J M J Delahaye; Anke T Witteveen; Rob C F Pover; Niels Bakx; Jaana S T Lahti-Domenici; Tako J Bruinsma; Marc O Warmoes; René Bernards; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Laura J Van't Veer Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2006-10-30 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Paul Roepman; Hugo M Horlings; Oscar Krijgsman; Marleen Kok; Jolien M Bueno-de-Mesquita; Richard Bender; Sabine C Linn; Annuska M Glas; Marc J van de Vijver Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jan Bogaerts; Fatima Cardoso; Marc Buyse; Sofia Braga; Sherene Loi; Jillian A Harrison; Jacques Bines; Stella Mook; Nuria Decker; Peter Ravdin; Patrick Therasse; Emiel Rutgers; Laura J van 't Veer; Martine Piccart Journal: Nat Clin Pract Oncol Date: 2006-10
Authors: Jennifer M Bordeaux; Huan Cheng; Allison W Welsh; Bruce G Haffty; Donald R Lannin; Xingyong Wu; Nan Su; Xiao-Jun Ma; Yuling Luo; David L Rimm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Hope S Rugo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Angela DeMichele; Christina Yau; Laura J van 't Veer; Meredith B Buxton; Michael Hogarth; Nola M Hylton; Melissa Paoloni; Jane Perlmutter; W Fraser Symmans; Douglas Yee; A Jo Chien; Anne M Wallace; Henry G Kaplan; Judy C Boughey; Tufia C Haddad; Kathy S Albain; Minetta C Liu; Claudine Isaacs; Qamar J Khan; Julie E Lang; Rebecca K Viscusi; Lajos Pusztai; Stacy L Moulder; Stephen Y Chui; Kathleen A Kemmer; Anthony D Elias; Kirsten K Edmiston; David M Euhus; Barbara B Haley; Rita Nanda; Donald W Northfelt; Debasish Tripathy; William C Wood; Cheryl Ewing; Richard Schwab; Julia Lyandres; Sarah E Davis; Gillian L Hirst; Ashish Sanil; Donald A Berry; Laura J Esserman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John W Park; Minetta C Liu; Douglas Yee; Christina Yau; Laura J van 't Veer; W Fraser Symmans; Melissa Paoloni; Jane Perlmutter; Nola M Hylton; Michael Hogarth; Angela DeMichele; Meredith B Buxton; A Jo Chien; Anne M Wallace; Judy C Boughey; Tufia C Haddad; Stephen Y Chui; Kathleen A Kemmer; Henry G Kaplan; Claudine Isaacs; Rita Nanda; Debasish Tripathy; Kathy S Albain; Kirsten K Edmiston; Anthony D Elias; Donald W Northfelt; Lajos Pusztai; Stacy L Moulder; Julie E Lang; Rebecca K Viscusi; David M Euhus; Barbara B Haley; Qamar J Khan; William C Wood; Michelle Melisko; Richard Schwab; Teresa Helsten; Julia Lyandres; Sarah E Davis; Gillian L Hirst; Ashish Sanil; Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T J A Dekker; S ter Borg; G K J Hooijer; S L Meijer; J Wesseling; J E Boers; E Schuuring; J Bart; J van Gorp; P Bult; S A Riemersma; C H M van Deurzen; H F B M Sleddens; W E Mesker; J R Kroep; V T H B M Smit; M J van de Vijver Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 4.872