BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease and luminal breast carcinomas represent the hormone receptor-positive tumors among all breast cancer subtypes. In this context, multigene signatures were developed to gain further prognostic and predictive information beyond clinical parameters and traditional immunohistochemical markers. SUMMARY: For early breast cancer patients these molecular tools can guide clinicians to decide on the extension of endocrine therapy to avoid over- and undertreatment by adjuvant chemotherapy. Beside the predictive and prognostic value, a few genomic tests are also able to provide intrinsic subtype classification. In this review, we compare the most frequently used and commercially available molecular tests (OncotypeDX®, MammaPrint®, Prosigna®, EndoPredict®, and Breast Cancer Index<sup>SM</sup>). Moreover, we discuss the clinical utility of molecular profiling for advanced breast cancer of the luminal subtype. KEY MESSAGES: Multigene assays can help to de-escalate systemic therapy in early-stage breast cancer. Only the Oncotype DX® and MammaPrint®<sup></sup>test are validated by entirely prospective and randomized phase 3 trials. More clinical evidence is needed to support the use of genomic tests in node-positive disease. Recent developments in high-throughput sequencing technology will provide further insights to understand the heterogeneity of luminal breast cancers in early-stage and metastatic disease.
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease and luminal breast carcinomas represent the hormone receptor-positive tumors among all breast cancer subtypes. In this context, multigene signatures were developed to gain further prognostic and predictive information beyond clinical parameters and traditional immunohistochemical markers. SUMMARY: For early breast cancer patients these molecular tools can guide clinicians to decide on the extension of endocrine therapy to avoid over- and undertreatment by adjuvant chemotherapy. Beside the predictive and prognostic value, a few genomic tests are also able to provide intrinsic subtype classification. In this review, we compare the most frequently used and commercially available molecular tests (OncotypeDX®, MammaPrint®, Prosigna®, EndoPredict®, and Breast Cancer Index<sup>SM</sup>). Moreover, we discuss the clinical utility of molecular profiling for advanced breast cancer of the luminal subtype. KEY MESSAGES: Multigene assays can help to de-escalate systemic therapy in early-stage breast cancer. Only the Oncotype DX® and MammaPrint®<sup></sup>test are validated by entirely prospective and randomized phase 3 trials. More clinical evidence is needed to support the use of genomic tests in node-positive disease. Recent developments in high-throughput sequencing technology will provide further insights to understand the heterogeneity of luminal breast cancers in early-stage and metastatic disease.
Authors: Lorenza Mittempergher; Leonie J M J Delahaye; Anke T Witteveen; Jacob B Spangler; Fariet Hassenmahomed; Sammy Mee; Soufiane Mahmoudi; Jiang Chen; Simon Bao; Mireille H J Snel; Sandra Leidelmeijer; Naomi Besseling; Anne Bergstrom Lucas; Carlos Pabón-Peña; Sabine C Linn; Christa Dreezen; Diederik Wehkamp; Bob Y Chan; René Bernards; Laura J van 't Veer; Annuska M Glas Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Philip J Stephens; Patrick S Tarpey; Helen Davies; Peter Van Loo; Chris Greenman; David C Wedge; Serena Nik-Zainal; Sancha Martin; Ignacio Varela; Graham R Bignell; Lucy R Yates; Elli Papaemmanuil; David Beare; Adam Butler; Angela Cheverton; John Gamble; Jonathan Hinton; Mingming Jia; Alagu Jayakumar; David Jones; Calli Latimer; King Wai Lau; Stuart McLaren; David J McBride; Andrew Menzies; Laura Mudie; Keiran Raine; Roland Rad; Michael Spencer Chapman; Jon Teague; Douglas Easton; Anita Langerød; Ming Ta Michael Lee; Chen-Yang Shen; Benita Tan Kiat Tee; Bernice Wong Huimin; Annegien Broeks; Ana Cristina Vargas; Gulisa Turashvili; John Martens; Aquila Fatima; Penelope Miron; Suet-Feung Chin; Gilles Thomas; Sandrine Boyault; Odette Mariani; Sunil R Lakhani; Marc van de Vijver; Laura van 't Veer; John Foekens; Christine Desmedt; Christos Sotiriou; Andrew Tutt; Carlos Caldas; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Samuel A J R Aparicio; Anne Vincent Salomon; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Andrea L Richardson; Peter J Campbell; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton Journal: Nature Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Lorenza Mittempergher; Jorma J de Ronde; Marja Nieuwland; Ron M Kerkhoven; Iris Simon; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Laura J Van't Veer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anna Maria Militello; Teresa Zielli; Daniela Boggiani; Maria Michiara; Nadia Naldi; Beatrice Bortesi; Paola Zanelli; Vera Uliana; Sara Giuliotti; Antonino Musolino Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Ivana Sestak; Richard Buus; Jack Cuzick; Peter Dubsky; Ralf Kronenwett; Carsten Denkert; Sean Ferree; Dennis Sgroi; Catherine Schnabel; Frederick L Baehner; Elizabeth Mallon; Mitch Dowsett Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 31.777