Aparna Gunda1, Mallikarjuna S Eshwaraiah1, Kiran Gangappa1, Taranjot Kaur1, Manjiri M Bakre2. 1. OncoStem Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., # 4 Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd, Aanand Tower, 2nd Floor, Bangalore, 560 0027, India. 2. OncoStem Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., # 4 Raja Ram Mohan Roy Rd, Aanand Tower, 2nd Floor, Bangalore, 560 0027, India. manjiri@oncostemdiagnostics.com.
Abstract
AIMS: Clinicians use multi-gene/biomarker prognostic tests and free online tools to optimize treatment in early ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Here we report the comparison of recurrence risk predictions by CanAssist Breast (CAB), Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), and PREDICT along with the differences in the performance of these tests across Indian and European cohorts. METHODS: Current study used a retrospective cohort of 1474 patients from Europe, India, and USA. NPI risk groups were categorized into three prognostic groups, good (GPG-NPI index ≤ 3.4) moderate (MPG 3.41-5.4), and poor (PPG > 5.4). Patients with chemotherapy benefit of < 2% were low-risk and ≥ 2% high-risk by PREDICT. We assessed the agreement between the CAB and NPI/PREDICT risk groups by kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Risk proportions generated by all tools were: CAB low:high 74:26; NPI good:moderate:poor prognostic group- 38:55:7; PREDICT low:high 63:37. Overall, there was a fair agreement between CAB and NPI[κ = 0.31(0.278-0.346)]/PREDICT [κ = 0.398 (0.35-0.446)], with a concordance of 97%/88% between CAB and NPI/PREDICT low-risk categories. 65% of NPI-MPG patients were called low-risk by CAB. From PREDICT high-risk patients CAB segregated 51% as low-risk, thus preventing over-treatment in these patients. In cohorts (European) with a higher number of T1N0 patients, NPI/PREDICT segregated more as LR compared to CAB, suggesting that T1N0 patients with aggressive biology are missed out by online tools but not by the CAB. CONCLUSION: Data shows the use of CAB in early breast cancer overall and specifically in NPI-MPG and PREDICT high-risk patients for making accurate decisions on chemotherapy use. CAB provided unbiased risk stratification across cohorts of various geographies with minimal impact by clinical parameters.
AIMS: Clinicians use multi-gene/biomarker prognostic tests and free online tools to optimize treatment in early ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Here we report the comparison of recurrence risk predictions by CanAssist Breast (CAB), Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), and PREDICT along with the differences in the performance of these tests across Indian and European cohorts. METHODS: Current study used a retrospective cohort of 1474 patients from Europe, India, and USA. NPI risk groups were categorized into three prognostic groups, good (GPG-NPI index ≤ 3.4) moderate (MPG 3.41-5.4), and poor (PPG > 5.4). Patients with chemotherapy benefit of < 2% were low-risk and ≥ 2% high-risk by PREDICT. We assessed the agreement between the CAB and NPI/PREDICT risk groups by kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Risk proportions generated by all tools were: CAB low:high 74:26; NPI good:moderate:poor prognostic group- 38:55:7; PREDICT low:high 63:37. Overall, there was a fair agreement between CAB and NPI[κ = 0.31(0.278-0.346)]/PREDICT [κ = 0.398 (0.35-0.446)], with a concordance of 97%/88% between CAB and NPI/PREDICT low-risk categories. 65% of NPI-MPG patients were called low-risk by CAB. From PREDICT high-risk patients CAB segregated 51% as low-risk, thus preventing over-treatment in these patients. In cohorts (European) with a higher number of T1N0 patients, NPI/PREDICT segregated more as LR compared to CAB, suggesting that T1N0 patients with aggressive biology are missed out by online tools but not by the CAB. CONCLUSION: Data shows the use of CAB in early breast cancer overall and specifically in NPI-MPG and PREDICT high-risk patients for making accurate decisions on chemotherapy use. CAB provided unbiased risk stratification across cohorts of various geographies with minimal impact by clinical parameters.
Authors: Stephen K Chia; Vivien H Bramwell; Dongsheng Tu; Lois E Shepherd; Shan Jiang; Tammi Vickery; Elaine Mardis; Samuel Leung; Karen Ung; Kathleen I Pritchard; Joel S Parker; Philip S Bernard; Charles M Perou; Matthew J Ellis; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L Leon Chen; Matthew E Nolan; Melvin J Silverstein; Martin C Mihm; Arthur J Sober; Kenneth K Tanabe; Barbara L Smith; Jerry Younger; James S Michaelson Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: N A de Glas; E Bastiaannet; C C Engels; A J M de Craen; H Putter; C J H van de Velde; A Hurria; G J Liefers; J E A Portielje Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 7.640