Literature DB >> 27252417

Cross-Stratification and Differential Risk by Breast Cancer Index and Recurrence Score in Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Lymph Node-Negative Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Ivana Sestak1, Yi Zhang2, Brock E Schroeder2, Catherine A Schnabel2, Mitch Dowsett3, Jack Cuzick4, Dennis Sgroi5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Previous results from the TransATAC study demonstrated that both the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) and the OncotypeDX Recurrence Score (RS) added significant prognostic information to clinicopathologic factors over a 10-year period. Here, we examined cross-stratification between BCI and RS to directly compare their prognostic accuracy at the individual patient level. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: A total of 665 patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and lymph node-negative disease were included in this retrospective analysis. BCI and RS risk groups were determined using predefined clinical cut-off points. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 10-year risk of distant recurrence (DR) and log-rank tests were used to examine cross-stratification between BCI and RS.
RESULTS: As previously reported, both RS and BCI were significantly prognostic in years 0 to 10. BCI provided significant additional prognostic information to the Clinical Treatment Score (CTS) plus RS (ΔLR-χ2 = 11.09; P < 0.001), whereas no additional prognostic information was provided by RS to CTS plus BCI (ΔLR-χ2 = 2.22; P = 0.1). Restratification by BCI of the low and intermediate RS risk groups led to subgroups with significantly different DR rates (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). In contrast, restratified subgroups created by RS of BCI risk groups did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, BCI demonstrated increased prognostic accuracy versus RS. Notably, BCI identified subsets of RS low and RS intermediate risk patients with significant and clinically relevant rates of DR. These results indicate that additional subsets of women with HR+, lymph node-negative breast cancer identified by BCI may be suitable candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy or extended endocrine therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 22(20); 5043-8. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Brufsky and Davidson, p. 4963. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27252417     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0155

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  5 in total

1.  Multiparametric Genomic Assays for Breast Cancer: Time for the Next Generation?

Authors:  Adam M Brufsky; Nancy E Davidson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  Breast Cancer: A Molecularly Heterogenous Disease Needing Subtype-Specific Treatments.

Authors:  Ugo Testa; Germana Castelli; Elvira Pelosi
Journal:  Med Sci (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-23

3.  Prognostic value of PAM50 and risk of recurrence score in patients with early-stage breast cancer with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Hege O Ohnstad; Elin Borgen; Ragnhild S Falk; Tonje G Lien; Marit Aaserud; My Anh T Sveli; Jon A Kyte; Vessela N Kristensen; Gry A Geitvik; Ellen Schlichting; Erik A Wist; Therese Sørlie; Hege G Russnes; Bjørn Naume
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 6.466

4.  Dependence receptor UNC5A restricts luminal to basal breast cancer plasticity and metastasis.

Authors:  Maria B Padua; Poornima Bhat-Nakshatri; Manjushree Anjanappa; Mayuri S Prasad; Yangyang Hao; Xi Rao; Sheng Liu; Jun Wan; Yunlong Liu; Kyle McElyea; Max Jacobsen; George Sandusky; Sandra Althouse; Susan Perkins; Harikrishna Nakshatri
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Prognostic immune-related gene models for breast cancer: a pooled analysis.

Authors:  Jianli Zhao; Ying Wang; Zengding Lao; Siting Liang; Jingyi Hou; Yunfang Yu; Herui Yao; Na You; Kai Chen
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 4.147

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.