John M S Bartlett1, Jane Bayani2, Andrea Marshall2, Janet A Dunn2, Amy Campbell2, Carrie Cunningham2, Monika S Sobol2, Peter S Hall2, Christopher J Poole2, David A Cameron2, Helena M Earl2, Daniel W Rea2, Iain R Macpherson2, Peter Canney2, Adele Francis2, Christopher McCabe2, Sarah E Pinder2, Luke Hughes-Davies2, Andreas Makris2, Robert C Stein2. 1. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (JMSB, JB); University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (JMSB); University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (JMSB, CC, MSS, PSH, DAC); Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK (AM, JAD, AC); University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK (CJP); University of Cambridge Department of Oncology and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK (HME); Cancer Research UK Institute for Cancer Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK (DWR); University of Glasgow, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK (IRM, PC); University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK (AF); University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada (CM); Kings College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK (SEP); Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK (LHD); Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Middlesex, UK (AM); National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK (RCS). john.bartlett@oicr.on.ca. 2. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (JMSB, JB); University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (JMSB); University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (JMSB, CC, MSS, PSH, DAC); Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK (AM, JAD, AC); University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK (CJP); University of Cambridge Department of Oncology and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK (HME); Cancer Research UK Institute for Cancer Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK (DWR); University of Glasgow, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK (IRM, PC); University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK (AF); University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada (CM); Kings College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK (SEP); Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK (LHD); Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Middlesex, UK (AM); National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK (RCS).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous reports identifying discordance between multiparameter tests at the individual patient level have been largely attributed to methodological shortcomings of multiple in silico studies. Comparisons between tests, when performed using actual diagnostic assays, have been predicted to demonstrate high degrees of concordance. OPTIMA prelim compared predicted risk stratification and subtype classification of different multiparameter tests performed directly on the same population. METHODS: Three hundred thirteen women with early breast cancer were randomized to standard (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or test-directed (chemotherapy if Oncotype DX recurrence score >25) treatment. Risk stratification was also determined with Prosigna (PAM50), MammaPrint, MammaTyper, NexCourse Breast (IHC4-AQUA), and conventional IHC4 (IHC4). Subtype classification was provided by Blueprint, MammaTyper, and Prosigna. RESULTS: Oncotype DX predicted a higher proportion of tumors as low risk (82.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.8% to 86.4%) than were predicted low/intermediate risk using Prosigna (65.5%, 95% CI = 60.1% to 70.9%), IHC4 (72.0%, 95% CI = 66.5% to 77.5%), MammaPrint (61.4%, 95% CI = 55.9% to 66.9%), or NexCourse Breast (61.6%, 95% CI = 55.8% to 67.4%). Strikingly, the five tests showed only modest agreement when dichotomizing results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Only 119 (39.4%) tumors were classified uniformly as either low/intermediate risk or high risk, and 183 (60.6%) were assigned to different risk categories by different tests, although 94 (31.1%) showed agreement between four of five tests. All three subtype tests assigned 59.5% to 62.4% of tumors to luminal A subtype, but only 121 (40.1%) were classified as luminal A by all three tests and only 58 (19.2%) were uniformly assigned as nonluminal A. Discordant subtyping was observed in 123 (40.7%) tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests that current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorization and subtype information.
BACKGROUND: Previous reports identifying discordance between multiparameter tests at the individual patient level have been largely attributed to methodological shortcomings of multiple in silico studies. Comparisons between tests, when performed using actual diagnostic assays, have been predicted to demonstrate high degrees of concordance. OPTIMA prelim compared predicted risk stratification and subtype classification of different multiparameter tests performed directly on the same population. METHODS: Three hundred thirteen women with early breast cancer were randomized to standard (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or test-directed (chemotherapy if Oncotype DX recurrence score >25) treatment. Risk stratification was also determined with Prosigna (PAM50), MammaPrint, MammaTyper, NexCourse Breast (IHC4-AQUA), and conventional IHC4 (IHC4). Subtype classification was provided by Blueprint, MammaTyper, and Prosigna. RESULTS: Oncotype DX predicted a higher proportion of tumors as low risk (82.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.8% to 86.4%) than were predicted low/intermediate risk using Prosigna (65.5%, 95% CI = 60.1% to 70.9%), IHC4 (72.0%, 95% CI = 66.5% to 77.5%), MammaPrint (61.4%, 95% CI = 55.9% to 66.9%), or NexCourse Breast (61.6%, 95% CI = 55.8% to 67.4%). Strikingly, the five tests showed only modest agreement when dichotomizing results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Only 119 (39.4%) tumors were classified uniformly as either low/intermediate risk or high risk, and 183 (60.6%) were assigned to different risk categories by different tests, although 94 (31.1%) showed agreement between four of five tests. All three subtype tests assigned 59.5% to 62.4% of tumors to luminal A subtype, but only 121 (40.1%) were classified as luminal A by all three tests and only 58 (19.2%) were uniformly assigned as nonluminal A. Discordant subtyping was observed in 123 (40.7%) tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests that current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorization and subtype information.
Authors: C M Perou; S S Jeffrey; M van de Rijn; C A Rees; M B Eisen; D T Ross; A Pergamenschikov; C F Williams; S X Zhu; J C Lee; D Lashkari; D Shalon; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1999-08-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert C Stein; Janet A Dunn; John M S Bartlett; Amy F Campbell; Andrea Marshall; Peter Hall; Leila Rooshenas; Adrienne Morgan; Christopher Poole; Sarah E Pinder; David A Cameron; Nigel Stallard; Jenny L Donovan; Christopher McCabe; Luke Hughes-Davies; Andreas Makris Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Alan Mackay; Britta Weigelt; Anita Grigoriadis; Bas Kreike; Rachael Natrajan; Roger A'Hern; David S P Tan; Mitch Dowsett; Alan Ashworth; Jorge S Reis-Filho Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gordon C Wishart; Elizabeth M Azzato; David C Greenberg; Jem Rashbass; Olive Kearins; Gill Lawrence; Carlos Caldas; Paul D P Pharoah Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Ivana Sestak; Elena Lopez-Knowles; Kalvinder Sidhu; Anita K Dunbier; J Wayne Cowens; Sean Ferree; James Storhoff; Carl Schaper; Jack Cuzick Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jon Whitney; German Corredor; Andrew Janowczyk; Shridar Ganesan; Scott Doyle; John Tomaszewski; Michael Feldman; Hannah Gilmore; Anant Madabhushi Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: F Cardoso; J M S Bartlett; L Slaets; C H M van Deurzen; E van Leeuwen-Stok; P Porter; B Linderholm; I Hedenfalk; C Schröder; J Martens; J Bayani; C van Asperen; M Murray; C Hudis; L Middleton; J Vermeij; K Punie; J Fraser; M Nowaczyk; I T Rubio; S Aebi; C Kelly; K J Ruddy; E Winer; C Nilsson; L Dal Lago; L Korde; K Benstead; O Bogler; T Goulioti; A Peric; S Litière; K C Aalders; C Poncet; K Tryfonidis; S H Giordano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Arian Lundberg; Linda S Lindström; J Chuck Harrell; Claudette Falato; Joseph W Carlson; Paul K Wright; Theodoros Foukakis; Charles M Perou; Kamila Czene; Jonas Bergh; Nicholas P Tobin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Julian Puppe; Tabea Seifert; Christian Eichler; Henryk Pilch; Peter Mallmann; Wolfram Malter Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 2.860