Literature DB >> 33721561

70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age.

Martine Piccart1, Laura J van 't Veer2, Coralie Poncet3, Josephine M N Lopes Cardozo3, Suzette Delaloge4, Jean-Yves Pierga5, Peter Vuylsteke6, Etienne Brain7, Suzan Vrijaldenhoven8, Peter A Neijenhuis9, Sylvian Causeret10, Tineke J Smilde11, Giuseppe Viale12, Annuska M Glas13, Mauro Delorenzi14, Christos Sotiriou15, Isabel T Rubio16, Sherko Kümmel17, Gabriele Zoppoli18, Alastair M Thompson19, Erika Matos20, Khalil Zaman21, Florentine Hilbers22, Debora Fumagalli22, Peter Ravdin23, Susan Knox24, Konstantinos Tryfonidis3, Aleksandra Peric3, Bart Meulemans3, Jan Bogaerts3, Fatima Cardoso25, Emiel J T Rutgers26.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The MINDACT trial showed excellent 5-year distant metastasis-free survival of 94·7% (95% CI 92·5-96·2) in patients with breast cancer of high clinical and low genomic risk who did not receive chemotherapy. We present long-term follow-up results together with an exploratory analysis by age.
METHODS: MINDACT was a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 112 academic and community hospitals in nine European countries. Patients aged 18-70 years, with histologically confirmed primary invasive breast cancer (stage T1, T2, or operable T3) with up to three positive lymph nodes, no distant metastases, and a WHO performance status of 0-1 were enrolled and their genomic risk (using the MammaPrint 70-gene signature) and clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online) were determined. Patients with low clinical and low genomic risk results did not receive chemotherapy, and patients with high clinical and high genomic risk did receive chemotherapy (mostly anthracycline-based or taxane-based, or a combination thereof). Patients with discordant risk results (ie, patients with high clinical risk but low genomic risk, and those with low clinical risk but high genomic risk) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy or not based on either the clinical risk or the genomic risk. Randomisation was done centrally and used a minimisation technique that was stratified by institution, risk group, and clinical-pathological characteristics. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was to test whether the distant metastasis-free survival rate at 5 years in patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk not receiving chemotherapy had a lower boundary of the 95% CI above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%. In the primary test population of patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk who adhered to the treatment allocation of no chemotherapy and had no change in risk post-enrolment. Here, we present updated follow-up as well as an exploratory analysis of a potential age effect (≤50 years vs >50 years) and an analysis by nodal status for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative disease. These analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433589, and the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2005-002625-31. Recruitment is complete and further long-term follow-up is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2007, and July 11, 2011, 6693 patients were enrolled. On Feb 26, 2020, median follow-up was 8·7 years (IQR 7·8-9·7). The updated 5-year distant metastasis-free survival rate for patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk receiving no chemotherapy (primary test population, n=644) was 95·1% (95% CI 93·1-96·6), which is above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%, supporting the previous analysis and proving MINDACT as a positive de-escalation trial. Patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=749) or not (n=748); this was the intention-to-treat population. The 8-year estimates for distant metastasis-free survival in the intention-to-treat population were 92·0% (95% CI 89·6-93·8) for chemotherapy versus 89·4% (86·8-91·5) for no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·48-0·92). An exploratory analysis confined to the subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease (1358 [90.7%] of 1497 randomly assigned patients, of whom 676 received chemotherapy and 682 did not) shows different effects of chemotherapy administration on 8-year distant metastasis-free survival according to age: 93·6% (95% CI 89·3-96·3) with chemotherapy versus 88·6% (83·5-92·3) without chemotherapy in 464 women aged 50 years or younger (absolute difference 5·0 percentage points [SE 2·8, 95% CI -0·5 to 10·4]) and 90·2% (86·8-92·7) versus 90·0% (86·6-92·6) in 894 women older than 50 years (absolute difference 0·2 percentage points [2·1, -4·0 to 4·4]). The 8-year distant metastasis-free survival in the exploratory analysis by nodal status in these patients was 91·7% (95% CI 88·1-94·3) with chemotherapy and 89·2% (85·2-92·2) without chemotherapy in 699 node-negative patients (absolute difference 2·5 percentage points [SE 2·3, 95% CI -2·1 to 7·2]) and 91·2% (87·2-94·0) versus 89·9% (85·8-92·8) for 658 patients with one to three positive nodes (absolute difference 1·3 percentage points [2·4, -3·5 to 6·1]).
INTERPRETATION: With a more mature follow-up approaching 9 years, the 70-gene signature shows an intact ability of identifying among women with high clinical risk, a subgroup, namely patients with a low genomic risk, with an excellent distant metastasis-free survival when treated with endocrine therapy alone. For these women the magnitude of the benefit from adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remains small (2·6 percentage points) and is not enhanced by nodal positivity. However, in an underpowered exploratory analysis this benefit appears to be age-dependent, as it is only seen in women younger than 50 years where it reaches a clinically relevant threshold of 5 percentage points. Although, possibly due to chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression, it should be part of informed, shared decision making. Further study is needed in younger women, who might need reinforced endocrine therapy to forego chemotherapy. FUNDING: European Commission Sixth Framework Programme.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33721561     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00007-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  37 in total

1.  21-Gene Assay to Inform Chemotherapy Benefit in Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Kevin Kalinsky; William E Barlow; Julie R Gralow; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Nancy U Lin; Edith A Perez; Lori J Goldstein; Stephen K L Chia; Sukhbinder Dhesy-Thind; Priya Rastogi; Emilio Alba; Suzette Delaloge; Miguel Martin; Catherine M Kelly; Manuel Ruiz-Borrego; Miguel Gil-Gil; Claudia H Arce-Salinas; Etienne G C Brain; Eun-Sook Lee; Jean-Yves Pierga; Begoña Bermejo; Manuel Ramos-Vazquez; Kyung-Hae Jung; Jean-Marc Ferrero; Anne F Schott; Steven Shak; Priyanka Sharma; Danika L Lew; Jieling Miao; Debasish Tripathy; Lajos Pusztai; Gabriel N Hortobagyi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Advancement of prognostic models in breast cancer: a narrative review.

Authors:  Ningning Min; Yufan Wei; Yiqiong Zheng; Xiru Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-09

3.  A novel age-related gene expression signature associates with proliferation and disease progression in breast cancer.

Authors:  L M Ingebriktsen; K Finne; L A Akslen; E Wik
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 9.075

4.  Redefining breast cancer subtypes to guide treatment prioritization and maximize response: Predictive biomarkers across 10 cancer therapies.

Authors:  Denise M Wolf; Christina Yau; Julia Wulfkuhle; Lamorna Brown-Swigart; Rosa I Gallagher; Pei Rong Evelyn Lee; Zelos Zhu; Mark J Magbanua; Rosalyn Sayaman; Nicholas O'Grady; Amrita Basu; Amy Delson; Jean Philippe Coppé; Ruixiao Lu; Jerome Braun; Smita M Asare; Laura Sit; Jeffrey B Matthews; Jane Perlmutter; Nola Hylton; Minetta C Liu; Paula Pohlmann; W Fraser Symmans; Hope S Rugo; Claudine Isaacs; Angela M DeMichele; Douglas Yee; Donald A Berry; Lajos Pusztai; Emanuel F Petricoin; Gillian L Hirst; Laura J Esserman; Laura J van 't Veer
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 38.585

5.  Comparison of Genomic Profiling Data with Clinical Parameters: Implications for Breast Cancer Prognosis.

Authors:  José A López-Ruiz; Jon A Mieza; Ignacio Zabalza; María D M Vivanco
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 6.  Clinical and Biological Aspects of Disseminated Tumor Cells and Dormancy in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Alexander Ring; Maria Spataro; Andreas Wicki; Nicola Aceto
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2022-06-28

7.  Combining method of detection and 70-gene signature for enhanced prognostication of breast cancer.

Authors:  J M N Lopes Cardozo; M K Schmidt; L J van 't Veer; F Cardoso; C Poncet; E J T Rutgers; C A Drukker
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  The early-stage triple-negative breast cancer landscape derives a novel prognostic signature and therapeutic target.

Authors:  Yun-Song Yang; Yi-Xing Ren; Cheng-Lin Liu; Shuang Hao; Xiao-En Xu; Xi Jin; Yi-Zhou Jiang; Zhi-Ming Shao
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  The WISDOM study: a new approach to screening can and should be tested.

Authors:  Laura Esserman; Martin Eklund; Laura Van't Veer; Yiwey Shieh; Jeffrey Tice; Elad Ziv; Amie Blanco; Celia Kaplan; Robert Hiatt; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Christina Yau; Maren Scheuner; Arash Naeim; Neil Wenger; Vivian Lee; Diane Heditsian; Susie Brain; Barbara A Parker; Andrea Z LaCroix; Lisa Madlensky; Michael Hogarth; Alexander Borowsky; Hoda Anton-Culver; Andrea Kaster; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Deepa Sheth; Augustin Garcia; Rachael Lancaster; Michael Plaza
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 10.  Multi-Gene Testing Overview with a Clinical Perspective in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Martina Dameri; Lorenzo Ferrando; Gabriella Cirmena; Claudio Vernieri; Giancarlo Pruneri; Alberto Ballestrero; Gabriele Zoppoli
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.