Anne A Eaton1, Catherine E Pesce2, James O Murphy3, Michelle M Stempel4, Sujata M Patil1, Edi Brogi5, Clifford A Hudis6, Mahmoud El-Tamer7. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA. 3. University Hospital Waterford, Waterford, Ireland. 4. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Breast Cancer Medicine Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA. eltamerm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: OncotypeDX, a multi-gene expression assay, has been incorporated into clinical practice as a prognostic and predictive tool. However, its use in resource-constrained international healthcare systems is limited. Here we develop and validate a simplified model using clinicopathologic criteria to predict OncotypeDX score. METHODS: Patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative invasive ductal carcinoma for whom the OncotypeDX test was successfully performed between 09/2008 and 12/2011 were retrospectively identified. Tumor size, nuclear and histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, and ER and PR status were extracted from pathology reports. Data were split into a training dataset comprising women tested 09/2008-04/2011, and a validation dataset comprising women tested 04/2011-12/2011. Using the training dataset, linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with OncotypeDX score, and to create a simplified risk score and identify risk cutoffs. RESULTS: Estrogen and progesterone receptors, tumor size, nuclear and histologic grades, and lymphovascular involvement were independently associated with OncotypeDX. The full model explained 39% of the variation in the test data, and the simplified risk score and cutoffs assigned 57% of patients in the test data to the correct risk category (OncotypeDX score <18, 18-30, >30). 41% of patients were predicted to have OncotypeDX score <18, of these 83, 16, and 2% had true scores of <18, 18-30, and >30, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Awaiting an inexpensive test that is prognostic and predictive, our simplified tool allows clinicians to identify a fairly large group of patients (41%) with very low chance of having high-risk disease (2%).
BACKGROUND: OncotypeDX, a multi-gene expression assay, has been incorporated into clinical practice as a prognostic and predictive tool. However, its use in resource-constrained international healthcare systems is limited. Here we develop and validate a simplified model using clinicopathologic criteria to predict OncotypeDX score. METHODS:Patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative invasive ductal carcinoma for whom the OncotypeDX test was successfully performed between 09/2008 and 12/2011 were retrospectively identified. Tumor size, nuclear and histologic grade, lymphovascular invasion, and ER and PR status were extracted from pathology reports. Data were split into a training dataset comprising women tested 09/2008-04/2011, and a validation dataset comprising women tested 04/2011-12/2011. Using the training dataset, linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with OncotypeDX score, and to create a simplified risk score and identify risk cutoffs. RESULTS: Estrogen and progesterone receptors, tumor size, nuclear and histologic grades, and lymphovascular involvement were independently associated with OncotypeDX. The full model explained 39% of the variation in the test data, and the simplified risk score and cutoffs assigned 57% of patients in the test data to the correct risk category (OncotypeDX score <18, 18-30, >30). 41% of patients were predicted to have OncotypeDX score <18, of these 83, 16, and 2% had true scores of <18, 18-30, and >30, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Awaiting an inexpensive test that is prognostic and predictive, our simplified tool allows clinicians to identify a fairly large group of patients (41%) with very low chance of having high-risk disease (2%).
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; OncotypeDX; Risk prediction
Authors: Jennifer E Joh; Nicole N Esposito; John V Kiluk; Christine Laronga; M Catherine Lee; Loretta Loftus; Hatem Soliman; Judy C Boughey; Carol Reynolds; Thomas J Lawton; Peter I Acs; Lucio Gordan; Geza Acs Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-10-20
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Charles L Loprinzi; Carol Reynolds; Amylou C Dueck; Xochiquetzal J Geiger; James N Ingle; Robert W Carlson; Timothy J Hobday; Eric P Winer; Matthew P Goetz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-09-20
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: Jack Cuzick; Mitch Dowsett; Silvia Pineda; Christopher Wale; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Lila Zabaglo; Elizabeth Mallon; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Anthony Howell; Aman U Buzdar; John F Forbes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Christopher Wale; John Forbes; Elizabeth A Mallon; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Anita Dunbier; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Steven Shak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laurel A Habel; Steven Shak; Marlena K Jacobs; Angela Capra; Claire Alexander; Mylan Pho; Joffre Baker; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; James Hackett; Noelle T Blick; Deborah Greenberg; Louis Fehrenbacher; Bryan Langholz; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2006-05-31 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Molly E Klein; David J Dabbs; Yongli Shuai; Adam M Brufsky; Rachel Jankowitz; Shannon L Puhalla; Rohit Bhargava Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Kathleen Van Asten; Laurence Slembrouck; Siel Olbrecht; Lynn Jongen; Olivier Brouckaert; Hans Wildiers; Giuseppe Floris; Erik Van Limbergen; Caroline Weltens; Ann Smeets; Robert Paridaens; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Meredith M Regan; Giuseppe Viale; Beat Thürlimann; Ignace Vergote; Evangelia Christodoulou; Ben Van Calster; Patrick Neven Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-31
Authors: Hongxiao Li; Jigang Wang; Zaibo Li; Melad Dababneh; Fusheng Wang; Peng Zhao; Geoffrey H Smith; George Teodoro; Meijie Li; Jun Kong; Xiaoxian Li Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-14
Authors: Kate R Pawloski; Mithat Gonen; Hannah Y Wen; Audree B Tadros; Donna Thompson; Kelly Abbate; Monica Morrow; Mahmoud El-Tamer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Austin D Williams; Kate R Pawloski; Hannah Y Wen; Varadan Sevilimedu; Donna Thompson; Monica Morrow; Mahmoud El-Tamer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Kristen S Purrington; David Gorski; Michael S Simon; Theresa A Hastert; Seongho Kim; Rayna Rosati; Ann G Schwartz; Manohar Ratnam Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Patrick Neven; Giuseppe Floris; Laurence Slembrouck; Isabelle Vanden Bempt; Hans Wildiers; Ann Smeets; Anne-Sophie Van Rompuy; Chantal Van Ongeval; Lynn Jongen; Caroline Weltens; Kevin Punie; Griet Hoste; Els Van Nieuwenhuysen; Sileny Han; Ines Nevelsteen Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 7.842