Juliet Richman1, Alistair Ring2, Mitch Dowsett3, Ivana Sestak4. 1. Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. julietrichman@doctors.org.uk. 2. Breast Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical Treatment Score at 5 years (CTS5) is a prognostic tool to estimate distant recurrence (DR) risk after 5 years of endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) breast cancer. METHODS: The validity of CTS5 was tested in a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with early ER-positive breast cancer. The primary endpoint was DR in years 5-10. The primary analysis cohort consisted of postmenopausal women, with premenopausal women as a secondary analysis cohort. Cox regression models were used to determine the prognostic value of CTS5 and Kaplan-Meier curves were used with associated 10-year DR risks (%). RESULTS: 2428 women were included with a median follow-up of 13.4 years. The CTS5 was significantly prognostic in both postmenopausal (N = 1662, HR = 2.18 95% CI (1.78-2.67)) and premenopausal women (N = 766, HR = 1.84 95% CI (1.32-2.56)). The 10-year DR risks were 2.9% (1.9-4.5), 7.2% (5.3-9.9), and 12.9% (10.0-16.7) for low, intermediate and high risk in postmenopausal women and 3.8% (2.2-6.7), 6.9% (4.4-10.8), and 11.1% (7.4-16.5) in premenopausal women, respectively. The number of observed DRs was significantly greater than expected in those predicted to be at high risk by CTS5 but this discordance was lost when those receiving more than 60 months of endocrine therapy were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The CTS5 demonstrated clinical validity for predicting late DR within a large cohort of unselected postmenopausal patients but less so in premenopausal patients. Calibration of the CTS5 was good in patients who did not receive extended endocrine therapy. The CTS5 low-risk cohort has risk of DR so low as to not warrant extended endocrine therapy.
PURPOSE: Clinical Treatment Score at 5 years (CTS5) is a prognostic tool to estimate distant recurrence (DR) risk after 5 years of endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) breast cancer. METHODS: The validity of CTS5 was tested in a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with early ER-positive breast cancer. The primary endpoint was DR in years 5-10. The primary analysis cohort consisted of postmenopausal women, with premenopausal women as a secondary analysis cohort. Cox regression models were used to determine the prognostic value of CTS5 and Kaplan-Meier curves were used with associated 10-year DR risks (%). RESULTS: 2428 women were included with a median follow-up of 13.4 years. The CTS5 was significantly prognostic in both postmenopausal (N = 1662, HR = 2.18 95% CI (1.78-2.67)) and premenopausal women (N = 766, HR = 1.84 95% CI (1.32-2.56)). The 10-year DR risks were 2.9% (1.9-4.5), 7.2% (5.3-9.9), and 12.9% (10.0-16.7) for low, intermediate and high risk in postmenopausal women and 3.8% (2.2-6.7), 6.9% (4.4-10.8), and 11.1% (7.4-16.5) in premenopausal women, respectively. The number of observed DRs was significantly greater than expected in those predicted to be at high risk by CTS5 but this discordance was lost when those receiving more than 60 months of endocrine therapy were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The CTS5 demonstrated clinical validity for predicting late DR within a large cohort of unselected postmenopausal patients but less so in premenopausal patients. Calibration of the CTS5 was good in patients who did not receive extended endocrine therapy. The CTS5 low-risk cohort has risk of DR so low as to not warrant extended endocrine therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Extended endocrine therapy; Late metastasis; Prediction
Authors: Paul E Goss; James N Ingle; Silvana Martino; Nicholas J Robert; Hyman B Muss; Martine J Piccart; Monica Castiglione; Dongsheng Tu; Lois E Shepherd; Kathleen I Pritchard; Robert B Livingston; Nancy E Davidson; Larry Norton; Edith A Perez; Jeffrey S Abrams; David A Cameron; Michael J Palmer; Joseph L Pater Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-09-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Iris Noordhoek; Erik J Blok; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Marjolijn Duijm-de Carpentier; Emiel J T Rutgers; Caroline Seynaeve; John M S Bartlett; Jean-Michel Vannetzel; Daniel W Rea; Annette Hasenburg; Robert Paridaens; Christos J Markopoulos; Yasuo Hozumi; Johanneke E A Portielje; Judith R Kroep; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Gerrit-Jan Liefers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ivana Sestak; Jack Cuzick; Mitch Dowsett; Elena Lopez-Knowles; Martin Filipits; Peter Dubsky; John Wayne Cowens; Sean Ferree; Carl Schaper; Christian Fesl; Michael Gnant Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erik J Blok; Judith R Kroep; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Marjolijn Duijm-de Carpentier; Hein Putter; Joan van den Bosch; Eduard Maartense; A Elise van Leeuwen-Stok; Gerrit-Jan Liefers; Johan W R Nortier; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Martin Filipits; Torsten O Nielsen; Margaretha Rudas; Richard Greil; Herbert Stöger; Raimund Jakesz; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Otto Dietze; Peter Regitnig; Christine Gruber-Rossipal; Elisabeth Müller-Holzner; Christian F Singer; Brigitte Mlineritsch; Peter Dubsky; Thomas Bauernhofer; Michael Hubalek; Michael Knauer; Harald Trapl; Christian Fesl; Carl Schaper; Sean Ferree; Shuzhen Liu; J Wayne Cowens; Michael Gnant Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hongchao Pan; Richard Gray; Jeremy Braybrooke; Christina Davies; Carolyn Taylor; Paul McGale; Richard Peto; Kathleen I Pritchard; Jonas Bergh; Mitch Dowsett; Daniel F Hayes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bella Kaufman; John R Mackey; Michael R Clemens; Poonamalle P Bapsy; Ashok Vaid; Andrew Wardley; Sergei Tjulandin; Michaela Jahn; Michaela Lehle; Andrea Feyereislova; Cédric Révil; Alison Jones Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul E Goss; James N Ingle; Kathleen I Pritchard; Nicholas J Robert; Hyman Muss; Julie Gralow; Karen Gelmon; Tim Whelan; Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Sheldon Rubin; Keren Sturtz; Antonio C Wolff; Eric Winer; Clifford Hudis; Alison Stopeck; J Thaddeus Beck; Judith S Kaur; Kate Whelan; Dongsheng Tu; Wendy R Parulekar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marco Colleoni; Weixiu Luo; Per Karlsson; Jacquie Chirgwin; Stefan Aebi; Guy Jerusalem; Patrick Neven; Erika Hitre; Marie-Pascale Graas; Edda Simoncini; Claus Kamby; Alastair Thompson; Sibylle Loibl; Joaquín Gavilá; Katsumasa Kuroi; Christian Marth; Bettina Müller; Seamus O'Reilly; Vincenzo Di Lauro; Andrea Gombos; Thomas Ruhstaller; Harold Burstein; Karin Ribi; Jürg Bernhard; Giuseppe Viale; Rudolf Maibach; Manuela Rabaglio-Poretti; Richard D Gelber; Alan S Coates; Angelo Di Leo; Meredith M Regan; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Ivana Sestak; Meredith M Regan; Andrew Dodson; Giuseppe Viale; Beat Thürlimann; Marco Colleoni; Jack Cuzick Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544