Literature DB >> 27998227

Optimizing the Use of Gene Expression Profiling in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Hyun-Seok Kim1, Christopher B Umbricht1, Peter B Illei1, Ashley Cimino-Mathews1, Soonweng Cho1, Nivedita Chowdhury1, Maria Cristina Figueroa-Magalhaes1, Catherine Pesce1, Stacie C Jeter1, Charles Mylander1, Martin Rosman1, Lorraine Tafra1, Bradley M Turner1, David G Hicks1, Tyler A Jensen1, Dylan V Miller1, Deborah K Armstrong1, Roisin M Connolly1, John H Fetting1, Robert S Miller1, Ben Ho Park1, Vered Stearns1, Kala Visvanathan1, Antonio C Wolff1, Leslie Cope1.   

Abstract

Purpose Gene expression profiling assays are frequently used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-negative breast cancer. We hypothesized that the clinical value of these new tools would be more fully realized when appropriately integrated with high-quality clinicopathologic data. Hence, we developed a model that uses routine pathologic parameters to estimate Oncotype DX recurrence score (ODX RS) and independently tested its ability to predict ODX RS in clinical samples. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed ordered ODX RS and pathology reports from five institutions (n = 1,113) between 2006 and 2013. We used locally performed histopathologic markers (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Elston grade) to develop models that predict RS-based risk categories. Ordering patterns at one site were evaluated under an integrated decision-making model incorporating clinical treatment guidelines, immunohistochemistry markers, and ODX. Final locked models were independently tested (n = 472). Results Distribution of RS was similar across sites and to reported clinical practice experience and stable over time. Histopathologic markers alone determined risk category with > 95% confidence in > 55% (616 of 1,113) of cases. Application of the integrated decision model to one site indicated that the frequency of testing would not have changed overall, although ordering patterns would have changed substantially with less testing of estimated clinical risk-high or clinical risk-low cases and more testing of clinical risk-intermediate cases. In the validation set, the model correctly predicted risk category in 52.5% (248 of 472). Conclusion The proposed model accurately predicts high- and low-risk RS categories (> 25 or ≤ 25) in a majority of cases. Integrating histopathologic and molecular information into the decision-making process allows refocusing the use of new molecular tools to cases with uncertain risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27998227      PMCID: PMC5455310          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.7195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  28 in total

1.  Adjuvant chemotherapy for postmenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer: it ain't necessarily so.

Authors:  Antonio C Wolff; Martin D Abeloff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-07-17       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Comparison of the prognostic and predictive utilities of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20.

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

3.  A Validated Model for Identifying Patients Unlikely to Benefit From the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay.

Authors:  Michele M Gage; Martin Rosman; W Charles Mylander; Erica Giblin; Hyun-Seok Kim; Leslie Cope; Christopher Umbricht; Antonio C Wolff; Lorraine Tafra
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  A lower Allred score for progesterone receptor is strongly associated with a higher recurrence score of 21-gene assay in breast cancer.

Authors:  Ping Tang; Jianmin Wang; David G Hicks; Xi Wang; Linda Schiffhauer; Loralee McMahon; Qi Yang; Michelle Shayne; Alissa Huston; Kristin A Skinner; Jennifer Griggs; Gary Lyman
Journal:  Cancer Invest       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.176

5.  Endocrine responsiveness and tailoring adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer: a randomized trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-07-17       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Histopathologic variables predict Oncotype DX recurrence score.

Authors:  Melina B Flanagan; David J Dabbs; Adam M Brufsky; Sushil Beriwal; Rohit Bhargava
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 7.842

7.  Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes.

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

8.  Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael J Hassett; Samuel M Silver; Melissa E Hughes; Douglas W Blayney; Stephen B Edge; James G Herman; Clifford A Hudis; P Kelly Marcom; Jane E Pettinga; David Share; Richard Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; Jonathan L Vandergrift; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy.

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

10.  Prediction of the Oncotype DX recurrence score: use of pathology-generated equations derived by linear regression analysis.

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

View more
  21 in total

1.  Management of Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Stage- and Subtype-Specific Approach.

Authors:  Jennifer Y Sheng; Cesar A Santa-Maria; Neha Mangini; Haval Norman; Rima Couzi; Raquel Nunes; Mary Wilkinson; Kala Visvanathan; Roisin M Connolly; Evanthia T Roussos Torres; John H Fetting; Deborah K Armstrong; Jessica J Tao; Lisa Jacobs; Jean L Wright; Elissa D Thorner; Christine Hodgdon; Samantha Horn; Antonio C Wolff; Vered Stearns; Karen L Smith
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2020-06-30

2.  Comparison of Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score® with other risk assessment tools including the Nottingham Prognostic Index in the identification of patients with low-risk invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Maura Bríd Cotter; Alex Dakin; Aoife Maguire; Janice M Walshe; M John Kennedy; Barbara Dunne; Ciarán Ó Riain; Cecily M Quinn
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Adherence to guidelines in requesting Oncotype DX in a publicly funded health care system.

Authors:  S Martel; M Lambertini; R Simon; C Matte; C Prady
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Recent Trends in Chemotherapy Use and Oncologists' Treatment Recommendations for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Irina Bondarenko; Reshma Jagsi; Christopher R Friese; M Chandler McLeod; Sarah T Hawley; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Timothy P Hofer; Steven J Katz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Prognostic Value of the Progesterone Receptor by Subtype in Patients with Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer.

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

6.  Deep Learning-Based Pathology Image Analysis Enhances Magee Feature Correlation With Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score.

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

7.  Impact of Genomic Assay Testing and Clinical Factors on Chemotherapy Use After Implementation of Standardized Testing Criteria.

Authors:  Kelsey H Natsuhara; Katya Losk; Tari A King; Nancy U Lin; Kristen Camuso; Mehra Golshan; Stephen Pochebit; Jane E Brock; Craig A Bunnell; Rachel A Freedman
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2018-08-03

Review 8.  Luminal A Breast Cancer and Molecular Assays: A Review.

Authors:  Jennifer J Gao; Sandra M Swain
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2018-02-22

9.  Concordance between results of inexpensive statistical models and multigene signatures in patients with ER+/HER2- early breast cancer.

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

10.  Association of 70-Gene Signature Assay Findings With Physicians' Treatment Guidance for Patients With Early Breast Cancer Classified as Intermediate Risk by the 21-Gene Assay.

Authors:  Michaela Tsai; Shelly Lo; William Audeh; Rubina Qamar; Raye Budway; Ellis Levine; Pat Whitworth; Blanche Mavromatis; Robin Zon; Dwight Oldham; Sarah Untch; Tina Treece; Lisa Blumencranz; Hatem Soliman
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 31.777

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.