| Literature DB >> 35587322 |
M Opdam1, V van der Noort2, M Kleijn3, A Glas3, I Mandjes2, S Kleiterp1, F S Hilbers1, D T Kruger1, A D Bins4, P C de Jong5, P P J B M Schiphorst6, T van Dalen7, B Flameling8, R C Rietbroek9, A Beeker10, S M van den Heiligenberg11, S D Bakker12, A N M Wymenga13, I M Oving14, R M Bijlsma15, P J van Diest16, J B Vermorken17,18, H van Tinteren2,19,20, S C Linn21,22,23.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend endocrine treatment for estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancers for up to 10 years. Earlier data suggest that the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) has potential to select patients that have an excellent survival without chemotherapy and limited or no tamoxifen treatment. The aim was to validate the 70-gene signature ultralow-risk classification for endocrine therapy decision making.Entities:
Keywords: Early breast cancer; Endocrine treatment; MammaPrint 70-gene signature; Overtreatment; Postmenopausal; Prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35587322 PMCID: PMC9239940 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06618-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat ISSN: 0167-6806 Impact factor: 4.624
Fig. 1CONSORT flow diagram of the IKA-randomized clinical trial patients used for analysis. FFPE formalin-fixed paraffin embedded, ER+ estrogen receptor positive, HER2− human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative
Patient characteristics of the 135 patients with 70-gene MammaPrint results and assigned randomization group compared to the ER+HER2− stage I–III patients of the IKA trial that were not analyzed. P values calculated between no tamoxifen and 1-3 year tamoxifen. Missing cases are not included in the calculation of the p values or percentages. No differences were statistically significant in the comparison between 70-gene signature tested and not tested ER+HER2- patients (p values not shown). Bold p values are below 0.05
| No tamoxifen | 1–3 year tamoxifen | Not tested ER+HER2− | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year of diagnosis | ||||
| 1982–1989 | 11 (32%) | 37 (37%) | 114 (33%) | |
| 1989–1994 | 23 (68%) | 64 (63%) | 233 (67%) | |
| Age (years) | ||||
| < 55 | 0 | 9 (9%) | 0.12 | 23 (7%) |
| 55–64 | 19 (56%) | 42 (41%) | 141 (41%) | |
| Surgery | ||||
| Breast conserving | 15 (44%) | 32 (32%) | 0.27 | 104 (30%) |
| Mastectomy | 19 (56%) | 69 (68%) | 238 (70%) | |
| Nodal status | ||||
| Negative | 29 (85%) | 51 (50%) | 194 (56%) | |
| Positive | 5 (15%) | 50 (50%) | 153 (44%) | |
| PR* | ||||
| < 10% | 14 (47%) | 42 (45%) | 0.46 | 161 (50%) |
| ≥ 10–50% | 5 (17%) | 25 (27%) | 50 (16%) | |
| > 50% | 11 (37%) | 26 (28%) | 110 (34%) | |
| Ki67* | ||||
| < 5% | 18 (67%) | 64 (74%) | 0.50 | 183 (69%) |
| ≥ 5–10% | 7 (26%) | 14 (16%) | 51 (19%) | |
| > 10% | 2 (7%) | 9 (10%) | 32 (12%) | |
| MAI* | ||||
| < 8/2 mm2 | 18 (55%) | 55 (55%) | 1.00 | 186 (54%) |
| ≥ 8/2 mm2 | 15 (45%) | 45 (45%) | 157 (46%) | |
| Grade | ||||
| 1 | 13 (38%) | 32 (32%) | 0.80 | 103 (30%) |
| 2 | 11 (32%) | 38 (38%) | 139 (40%) | |
| 3 | 10 (29%) | 31 (31%) | 103 (30%) | |
| T-size* | ||||
| T1 | 14 (42%) | 21 (21%) | 114 (33%) | |
| T2 | 19 (58%) | 70 (70%) | 204 (59%) | |
| T3 | 0 | 9 (9%) | 29 (8%) | |
| Randomization | ||||
| No endocrine treatment | 34 (100%) | 0 | 82 (24%) | |
| 1 year of tamoxifen | 0 | 53 (53%) | 174 (50%) | |
| 3 years of tamoxifen | 0 | 48 (48%) | 91 (26%) | |
| Tamoxifen received# | ||||
| Median duration [Q1–Q3] | 0 [0–0] | 1.3 [1.0–3.0] | 1.1 [1.0–3.0] |
The enrichment for node-positive patients in the 1–3 year tamoxifen-treated arm is due to the amendment in 1989
*For PR, Ki67, Mitotic Activity Index (MAI), and T-status some cases are missing (respectively, 12, 21, 2, and 2) of the tested patients
#p value for tamoxifen duration difference was calculated with Kruskal–Wallis test
70-gene signature classification and patient characteristics divided by the MammaPrint risk score. Bold p values are below 0.05
| Ultralow-risk | Low-risk | High-risk | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year of diagnosis | ||||
| 1982–1989 | 8 (35%) | 20 (34%) | 20 (38%) | 0.91 |
| 1989–1994 | 15 (65%) | 39 (66%) | 33 (62%) | |
| Age (years) | ||||
| < 54 | 2 (9%) | 4 (7%) | 3 (6%) | 0.85 |
| 55–64 | 10 (44%) | 24 (41%) | 27 (51%) | |
| > 65 | 11 (48%) | 31 (53%) | 23 (43%) | |
| Surgery | ||||
| Breast conserving | 12 (52%) | 17 (29%) | 18 (34%) | 0.14 |
| Mastectomy | 11 (48%) | 42 (71%) | 35 (66%) | |
| Nodal status | ||||
| Negative | 16 (70%) | 33 (56%) | 31 (58%) | 0.52 |
| Positive | 7 (30%) | 26 (44%) | 22 (42%) | |
| PR* | ||||
| < 10% | 6 (29%) | 23 (44%) | 27 (54%) | |
| ≥ 10–50% | 3 (14%) | 14 (27%) | 13 (26%) | |
| > 50% | 12 (57%) | 15(29%) | 10 (20%) | |
| Missing | 2 | 7 | 3 | |
| Ki67* | ||||
| < 5% | 14 (64%) | 32 (68%) | 36 (80%) | 0.05 |
| ≥ 5–10% | 8 (36%) | 8 (17%) | 5 (11%) | |
| > 10% | 0 | 7 (15%) | 4 (9%) | |
| Missing | 1 | 12 | 8 | |
| MAI* | ||||
| < 8/2 mm2 | 20 (87%) | 37 (65%) | 16 (30%) | |
| ≥ 8/2 mm2 | 3 (13%) | 20 (35%) | 37 (70%) | |
| Missing | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| Grade* | ||||
| 1 | 15 (65%) | 23 (39%) | 7 (13%) | |
| 2 | 8 (35%) | 22 (37%) | 19 (36%) | |
| 3 | 0 | 14 (24%) | 27 (51%) | |
| T-size* | ||||
| T1 | 4 (17%) | 19 (33%) | 12 (23%) | 0.41 |
| T2 | 17 (74%) | 34 (59%) | 38 (73%) | |
| T3 | 2 (9%) | 5 (9%) | 2 (4%) | |
| Randomization | ||||
| No treatment | 5 (22%) | 13 (22%) | 16 (30%) | 0.59 |
| 1 year tamoxifen | 10 (43%) | 21 (36%) | 22 (42%) | |
| 3 years tamoxifen | 8 (35%) | 25 (42%) | 15 (28%) | |
| Tamoxifen receiveda | ||||
| Median duration [Q1–Q3] | 1.1 [0.9–3.1] | 1.1 [0.5–3.0] | 1.0 [0–2.0] | 0.12 |
| Second primary tumor | ||||
| Number of events | 2 (9%) | 6 (10%) | 6 (11%) | 1.00 |
aFor tamoxifen duration Kruskal–Wallis test was used
*For PR, Ki67, Mitotic Activity Index (MAI) and T-size the missing cases are not included in the calculation of p values or percentages
Survival rates by 70-gene signature risk classification with 95% confidence intervals for recurrence-free interval, distant recurrence-free interval, and breast cancer-specific survival at 10, 15 and 20 years split by nodal status
| MammaPrint | Survival | 10 years | 15 years | 20 years | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Node-negative | 16 | ||||
| Ultralow-risk | RFI | 100% | 82% [61–100] | 82% [61–100] | |
| DRFI | 100% | 82% [61–100] | 82% [61–100] | ||
| BCSS | 100% | 92% [77–100] | 92% [77–100] | ||
| Low-risk | 33 | RFI | 90% [79–100] | 90% [79–100] | 90% [79–100] |
| DRFI | 90% [79–100] | 90% [79–100] | 90% [79–100] | ||
| BCSS | 93% [84–100] | 93% [84–100] | 93% [84–100] | ||
| High-risk | 31 | RFI | 66% [51–86] | 61% [45–83] | 61% [45–83] |
| DRFI | 66% [51–86] | 61% [45–83] | 61% [45–83] | ||
| BCSS | 72% [58–91] | 66% [50–88] | 60% [43–85] | ||
| Node-positive | |||||
| Ultralow-risk | 7 | RFI | 69% [40–100] | 69% [40–100] | 69% [40–100] |
| DRFI | 69% [40–100] | 69% [40–100] | 69% [40–100] | ||
| BCSS | 83% [58–100] | 83% [58–100] | 83% [58–100] | ||
| Low-risk | 26 | RFI | 79% [63–100] | 79% [63–100] | 79% [63–100] |
| DRFI | 78% [61–100] | 78% [61–100] | 78% [61–100] | ||
| BCSS | 96% [88–100] | 88% [73–100] | 78% [60–100] | ||
| High-risk | 22 | RFI | 42% [25–70] | 42% [25–70] | 42% [25–70] |
| DRFI | 53% [35–79] | 45% [27–75] | 45% [27–75] | ||
| BCSS | 57% [39–83] | 42% [24–74] | 42% [24–74] |
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier plots of survival in node-negative and node-positive patients. Recurrence-Free Interval of the patients stratified based on 70-gene MammaPrint risk score for A node-negative patients and B node-positive patients. Distant Recurrence-Free Interval of the patients stratified based on 70-gene MammaPrint risk score for C node-negative patients and D node-positive patients. Breast cancer-specific survival of the patients stratified based on 70-gene MammaPrint risk score for E node-negative patients and F node-positive patients
Fig. 3Predefined decision tree for the node-negative patients and Kaplan–Meier Plots based on the risk prediction. A The decision tool was proposed by Esserman and filled in with the node-negative patients from the IKA tamoxifen trial resulting in four groups. Risk prediction, number of Breast Cancer-Specific Deaths at 10 and 20 years, risk group name and number of patients are shown for each group. B Kaplan–Meier plots of recurrence-free interval and C breast cancer-specific survival are shown for the four end groups of the decision tree: MammaPrint ultralow, T1 MammaPrint low risk, T1 MammaPrint high risk, T2-3 MammaPrint not ultralow
Fig. 4Explorative decision tree for the node-positive patients and Kaplan–Meier Plots based on the risk prediction. The decision tool was developed using rpart with input variables: 70-gene MammaPrint classification (ultralow, low risk, or high risk), age, Ki67, MAI, tumor size, and grade. A The node-positive patients from the IKA tamoxifen trial were classified in three groups. Risk prediction, number of Breast Cancer-Specific Deaths at 10 and 20 years, risk group name, and number of patients are shown for each group. Note that the low-risk groups include ultralow-risk patients. B Kaplan–Meier plots recurrence-free interval and C breast cancer-specific survival shown for the three final groups of the decision tree: MammaPrint low risk with size ≤ 20 mm, MammaPrint low risk with size > 20 mm, and MammaPrint high risk