Michael R Harowicz1, Timothy J Robinson2,3, Michaela A Dinan4, Ashirbani Saha5, Jeffrey R Marks6, P Kelly Marcom4, Maciej A Mazurowski5,7,8. 1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2424 Erwin Road Suite 302, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. Michael.harowicz@duke.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2424 Erwin Road Suite 302, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 7. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 8. Duke University Medical Physics Program, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the potential savings in cost and resource utilization, several algorithms have been proposed to predict Oncotype DX recurrence score (ODX RS) using commonly acquired histopathologic variables. Although it is promising, additional independent validation of these surrogate markers is needed prior to guide the patient management. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed 305 patients with invasive breast cancer at our institution who had ODX RS available. We selected five equations that provide a surrogate measure of ODX as previously published by Klein et al. (Magee equations 1-3), Gage et al., and Tang et al. All equations used estrogen receptor status and progesterone receptor status along with different combinations of grade, proliferation indices (Ki-67, mitotic rate), HER2 status, and tumor size. RESULTS: Of all surrogate scores tested, the Magee equation 2 provided the highest correlation with ODX both with regard to raw score (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.66 95% CI 0.59-0.72) and categorical correlation (Cohen's kappa = 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). Although Magee equation 2 provided a way to reliably identify high-risk disease by assigning 95% of the patients with high ODX RS to either the intermediate- or high-risk group, it was unable to reliably identify the potential for patients to have intermediate- or high-risk disease by ODX (66% of such patients identified). CONCLUSIONS: Although commonly available surrogates for ODX appear to predict high-risk ODX RS, they are unable to reliably rule out the presence of patients with intermediate-risk disease by ODX. Given the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with intermediate-risk disease by ODX, current surrogates are unable to safely substitute for ODX. Characterizing the true recurrence risk in patients with intermediate-risk disease by ODX is critical to the clinical adoption of current surrogate markers and is an area of ongoing clinical trials.
PURPOSE: Given the potential savings in cost and resource utilization, several algorithms have been proposed to predict Oncotype DX recurrence score (ODX RS) using commonly acquired histopathologic variables. Although it is promising, additional independent validation of these surrogate markers is needed prior to guide the patient management. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed 305 patients with invasive breast cancer at our institution who had ODX RS available. We selected five equations that provide a surrogate measure of ODX as previously published by Klein et al. (Magee equations 1-3), Gage et al., and Tang et al. All equations used estrogen receptor status and progesterone receptor status along with different combinations of grade, proliferation indices (Ki-67, mitotic rate), HER2 status, and tumor size. RESULTS: Of all surrogate scores tested, the Magee equation 2 provided the highest correlation with ODX both with regard to raw score (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.66 95% CI 0.59-0.72) and categorical correlation (Cohen's kappa = 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). Although Magee equation 2 provided a way to reliably identify high-risk disease by assigning 95% of the patients with high ODX RS to either the intermediate- or high-risk group, it was unable to reliably identify the potential for patients to have intermediate- or high-risk disease by ODX (66% of such patients identified). CONCLUSIONS: Although commonly available surrogates for ODX appear to predict high-risk ODX RS, they are unable to reliably rule out the presence of patients with intermediate-risk disease by ODX. Given the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with intermediate-risk disease by ODX, current surrogates are unable to safely substitute for ODX. Characterizing the true recurrence risk in patients with intermediate-risk disease by ODX is critical to the clinical adoption of current surrogate markers and is an area of ongoing clinical trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Algorithm; Breast cancer; Histopathologic; Oncotype; Recurrence score
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: Dalia M Abd El-Rehim; Graham Ball; Sarah E Pinder; Emad Rakha; Claire Paish; John F R Robertson; Douglas Macmillan; Roger W Blamey; Ian O Ellis Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Chad A Livasy; Gamze Karaca; Rita Nanda; Maria S Tretiakova; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominic T Moore; Charles M Perou Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Aleix Prat; Maggie Chon U Cheang; Miguel Martín; Joel S Parker; Eva Carrasco; Rosalía Caballero; Scott Tyldesley; Karen Gelmon; Philip S Bernard; Torsten O Nielsen; Charles M Perou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
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
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
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Sean Tunis; Laurence Baker; John Crowley; Patricia Deverka; David Veenstra; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: S Fasanella; E Leonardi; C Cantaloni; C Eccher; I Bazzanella; D Aldovini; E Bragantini; L Morelli; L V Cuorvo; A Ferro; F Gasperetti; G Berlanda; P Dalla Palma; M Barbareschi Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 2.644
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: S E Pinder; P Wencyk; D M Sibbering; J A Bell; C W Elston; R Nicholson; J F Robertson; R W Blamey; I O Ellis Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1995-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Rohit Bhargava; Nicole N Esposito; Siobhan M OʹConnor; Zaibo Li; Bradley M Turner; Ioana Moisini; Aditi Ranade; Ronald P Harris; Dylan V Miller; Xiaoxian Li; Harrison Moosavi; Beth Z Clark; Adam M Brufsky; David J Dabbs Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Daniel J Farrugia; Alessandra Landmann; Li Zhu; Emilia J Diego; Ronald R Johnson; Marguerite Bonaventura; Atilla Soran; David J Dabbs; Beth Z Clark; Shannon L Puhalla; Rachel C Jankowitz; Adam M Brufsky; Barry C Lembersky; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Rohit Bhargava Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Thi Truc Anh Nguyen; Lauren M Postlewait; Chao Zhang; Jane L Meisel; Ruth O'Regan; Sunil Badve; Kevin Kalinsky; Xiaoxian Li Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Satbir Singh Thakur; Haocheng Li; Angela M Y Chan; Roxana Tudor; Gilbert Bigras; Don Morris; Emeka K Enwere; Hua Yang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240