Pat W Whitworth1,2, Peter D Beitsch2,3, Mary K Murray4,5, Paul D Richards6, Angela Mislowsky7, Carrie L Dul8, James V Pellicane9, Paul L Baron10,11, Rakhshanda Layeequr Rahman12, Laura A Lee13, Beth B Dupree14,15, Pond R Kelemen16,17, Andrew Y Ashikari16,17,18, Raye J Budway19, Cristina Lopez-Penalver20, William Dooley21,22, Shiyu Wang23, Patricia Dauer23, Andrea R Menicucci23, Erin B Yoder23, Christine Finn23, Lisa E Blumencranz23, William Audeh23. 1. Nashville Breast Center, Nashville, TN. 2. Targeted Medical Education, Cupertino, CA. 3. Dallas Surgical Group, Dallas, TX. 4. Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH. 5. Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH. 6. Blue Ridge Cancer Center, Roanoke, VA. 7. Tidelands Health, Coastal Carolina Breast Center, Murrells Inlet, SC. 8. Ascension St John Hospital Great Lakes Cancer Management Specialists, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI. 9. Bon Secours Virginia Breast Center, Midlothian, VA. 10. Breast and Melanoma Specialist of Charleston, Charleston, SC. 11. Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY. 12. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 13. Comprehensive Cancer Center, Palm Springs, CA. 14. St Mary Medical/Alliance Cancer Specialists, Langhorne, PA. 15. Holy Redeemer Health System, Sedona, AZ. 16. Ashikari Breast Center, Sleepy Hollow, NY. 17. Northwell Health Physician Partners, Mount Kisco, NY. 18. Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. 19. St Clair Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. 20. Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL. 21. Breast Institute, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK. 22. Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 23. Agendia Inc, Irvine, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial compared the 80-gene molecular subtyping signature with clinical assessment by immunohistochemistry and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization in predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) and 5-year outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with trastuzumab or trastuzumab plus pertuzumab was given to patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors (n = 295). pCR was the primary end point, with secondary end points of distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival at 5 years. RESULTS: Among clinically defined HER2-positive (cHER2) tumors, the 80-gene assay identified 29.5% (87 of 295) as Luminal-Type (cHER2/gLuminal), 14.9% (44 of 295) as Basal-Type (cHER2/gBasal), and 55.6% (164 of 295) as HER2-Type (cHER2/genomically classified as HER2 [gHER2]). Patients with cHER2/gHER2 tumors had a higher pCR rate (61.6%) compared with non-gHER2 tumors (26.7%; P < .001). Dual targeting for cHER2/gHER2 tumors yielded a higher pCR rate (75%) compared with those treated with single HER2-targeted therapy (54%; P = .006). For cHER2/gBasal tumors, the 42.9% pCR rate observed with dual targeting was not different from that with trastuzumab alone (46.4%; P = .830). Among those with cHER2/gBasal tumors, 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (68.6%; 95% CI, 49.1 to 81.9) was significantly worse than in patients with cHER2/gLuminal tumors (88.9%; 95% CI, 78.0 to 94.6) and cHER2/gHER2 tumors (87.4%; 95% CI, 80.2 to 92.2; P = .010), with similar corresponding overall survival differences. CONCLUSION: The 80-gene assay identified meaningful genomic diversity in patients with cHER2 disease. Patients with cHER2/gHER2 tumors, who benefitted most from dual HER2-targeted therapy, accounted for approximately half of the cHER2 cohort. Genomically Luminal tumors had low pCR rates but good 5-year outcomes. cHER2/gBasal tumors derived no benefit from dual therapy and had significantly worse 5-year prognosis; these patients merit special consideration in future trials.
PURPOSE: The prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial compared the 80-gene molecular subtyping signature with clinical assessment by immunohistochemistry and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization in predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) and 5-year outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with trastuzumab or trastuzumab plus pertuzumab was given to patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors (n = 295). pCR was the primary end point, with secondary end points of distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival at 5 years. RESULTS: Among clinically defined HER2-positive (cHER2) tumors, the 80-gene assay identified 29.5% (87 of 295) as Luminal-Type (cHER2/gLuminal), 14.9% (44 of 295) as Basal-Type (cHER2/gBasal), and 55.6% (164 of 295) as HER2-Type (cHER2/genomically classified as HER2 [gHER2]). Patients with cHER2/gHER2 tumors had a higher pCR rate (61.6%) compared with non-gHER2 tumors (26.7%; P < .001). Dual targeting for cHER2/gHER2 tumors yielded a higher pCR rate (75%) compared with those treated with single HER2-targeted therapy (54%; P = .006). For cHER2/gBasal tumors, the 42.9% pCR rate observed with dual targeting was not different from that with trastuzumab alone (46.4%; P = .830). Among those with cHER2/gBasal tumors, 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (68.6%; 95% CI, 49.1 to 81.9) was significantly worse than in patients with cHER2/gLuminal tumors (88.9%; 95% CI, 78.0 to 94.6) and cHER2/gHER2 tumors (87.4%; 95% CI, 80.2 to 92.2; P = .010), with similar corresponding overall survival differences. CONCLUSION: The 80-gene assay identified meaningful genomic diversity in patients with cHER2 disease. Patients with cHER2/gHER2 tumors, who benefitted most from dual HER2-targeted therapy, accounted for approximately half of the cHER2 cohort. Genomically Luminal tumors had low pCR rates but good 5-year outcomes. cHER2/gBasal tumors derived no benefit from dual therapy and had significantly worse 5-year prognosis; these patients merit special consideration in future trials.
Authors: Oscar Krijgsman; Paul Roepman; Wilbert Zwart; Jason S Carroll; Sun Tian; Femke A de Snoo; Richard A Bender; Rene Bernards; Annuska M Glas Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Gunter von Minckwitz; Marion Procter; Evandro de Azambuja; Dimitrios Zardavas; Mark Benyunes; Giuseppe Viale; Thomas Suter; Amal Arahmani; Nathalie Rouchet; Emma Clark; Adam Knott; Istvan Lang; Christelle Levy; Denise A Yardley; Jose Bines; Richard D Gelber; Martine Piccart; Jose Baselga Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Jared N Schwartz; Karen L Hagerty; D Craig Allred; Richard J Cote; Mitchell Dowsett; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Wedad M Hanna; Amy Langer; Lisa M McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D Pegram; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine Sturgeon; Sheila E Taube; Raymond Tubbs; Gail H Vance; Marc van de Vijver; Thomas M Wheeler; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gunter von Minckwitz; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Max S Mano; Sibylle Loibl; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Michael Untch; Norman Wolmark; Priya Rastogi; Andreas Schneeweiss; Andres Redondo; Hans H Fischer; William Jacot; Alison K Conlin; Claudia Arce-Salinas; Irene L Wapnir; Christian Jackisch; Michael P DiGiovanna; Peter A Fasching; John P Crown; Pia Wülfing; Zhimin Shao; Elena Rota Caremoli; Haiyan Wu; Lisa H Lam; David Tesarowski; Melanie Smitt; Hannah Douthwaite; Stina M Singel; Charles E Geyer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Aleix Prat; Lisa A Carey; Barbara Adamo; Maria Vidal; Josep Tabernero; Javier Cortés; Joel S Parker; Charles M Perou; José Baselga Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 13.506