J M N Lopes Cardozo1,2, M K Schmidt3, L J van 't Veer4, F Cardoso5, C Poncet2, E J T Rutgers1, C A Drukker6. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Molecular Pathology and Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, USA. 5. Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Center/Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal. 6. Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands. c.drukker@nki.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have shown that screen detection by national screening programs is independently associated with better prognosis of breast cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between tumor biology according to the 70-gene signature (70-GS) and survival of patients with screen-detected and interval breast cancers. METHODS: All Dutch breast cancer patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041/BIG3-04) accrued 2007-2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening, ages 50-75) were included (n = 1102). Distant Metastasis-Free Interval (DMFI) was evaluated according to the 70-GS for patients with screen-detected (n = 754) and interval cancers (n = 348). RESULTS: Patients with screen-detected cancers had 8-year DMFI rates of 98.2% for 70-GS ultralow-, 94.6% for low-, and 93.8% for high-risk tumors (p = 0.4). For interval cancers, there was a significantly lower 8-year DMFI rate for patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors (85.2%) compared to low- (92.2%) and ultralow-risk tumors (97.4%, p = 0.0023). Among patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors, a significant difference in 8-year DMFI rate was observed between interval (85.2%, n = 166) versus screen-detected cancers (93.8%, n = 238; p = 0.002) with a HR of 2.3 (95%CI 1.2-4.4, p = 0.010) adjusted for clinical-pathological characteristics and adjuvant systemic treatment. CONCLUSION: Among patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors, a significant difference in DMFI was observed between screen-detected and interval cancers, suggesting that method of detection is an additional prognostic factor in this subgroup and should be taken into account when deciding on adjuvant treatment strategies.
PURPOSE: Studies have shown that screen detection by national screening programs is independently associated with better prognosis of breast cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between tumor biology according to the 70-gene signature (70-GS) and survival of patients with screen-detected and interval breast cancers. METHODS: All Dutch breast cancerpatients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041/BIG3-04) accrued 2007-2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening, ages 50-75) were included (n = 1102). Distant Metastasis-Free Interval (DMFI) was evaluated according to the 70-GS for patients with screen-detected (n = 754) and interval cancers (n = 348). RESULTS:Patients with screen-detected cancers had 8-year DMFI rates of 98.2% for 70-GS ultralow-, 94.6% for low-, and 93.8% for high-risk tumors (p = 0.4). For interval cancers, there was a significantly lower 8-year DMFI rate for patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors (85.2%) compared to low- (92.2%) and ultralow-risk tumors (97.4%, p = 0.0023). Among patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors, a significant difference in 8-year DMFI rate was observed between interval (85.2%, n = 166) versus screen-detected cancers (93.8%, n = 238; p = 0.002) with a HR of 2.3 (95%CI 1.2-4.4, p = 0.010) adjusted for clinical-pathological characteristics and adjuvant systemic treatment. CONCLUSION: Among patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors, a significant difference in DMFI was observed between screen-detected and interval cancers, suggesting that method of detection is an additional prognostic factor in this subgroup and should be taken into account when deciding on adjuvant treatment strategies.
Entities:
Keywords:
70-gene signature; Breast cancer; Interval cancer; Mammographic screening; Screen-detected cancer; Screening program
Authors: H A Azim; S Michiels; F Zagouri; S Delaloge; M Filipits; M Namer; P Neven; W F Symmans; A Thompson; F André; S Loi; C Swanton Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-01-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: P L Porter; A Y El-Bastawissi; M T Mandelson; M G Lin; N Khalid; E A Watney; L Cousens; D White; S Taplin; E White Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stella Mook; Laura J Van 't Veer; Emiel J Rutgers; Peter M Ravdin; Anthonie O van de Velde; Flora E van Leeuwen; Otto Visser; Marjanka K Schmidt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Iris D Nagtegaal; Prue C Allgood; Stephen W Duffy; Olive Kearins; E O Sullivan; Nancy Tappenden; Matthew Wallis; Gill Lawrence Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Ian M Thompson; Brian Reid; Peter Nelson; David F Ransohoff; H Gilbert Welch; Shelley Hwang; Donald A Berry; Kenneth W Kinzler; William C Black; Mina Bissell; Howard Parnes; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Augustinus A M Hart; Dorien W Voskuil; George J Schreiber; Johannes L Peterse; Chris Roberts; Matthew J Marton; Mark Parrish; Douwe Atsma; Anke Witteveen; Annuska Glas; Leonie Delahaye; Tony van der Velde; Harry Bartelink; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel T Rutgers; Stephen H Friend; René Bernards Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C A Drukker; M K Schmidt; E J T Rutgers; F Cardoso; K Kerlikowske; L J Esserman; F E van Leeuwen; R M Pijnappel; L Slaets; J Bogaerts; L J Van't Veer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 4.872