Practical implications of gene-expression-based assays for breast oncologists

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 48-57

  Prat, Aleix ^a   Ellis, Matthew J ^b   Perou, Charles M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; FLUOROURACIL; LETROZOLE; METHOTREXATE; TAMOXIFEN;

BIOASSAY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURVIVAL; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROGNOSIS; PROTEIN DETERMINATION; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN LOCALIZATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENES, ERBB-2; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RECEPTORS, PROGESTERONE; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84655169981     PISSN: 17594774     EISSN: 17594782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.178     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J. & Ward, E. Cancer Statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J. Clin. 60, 277-300 (2010).
2. NCCM Clinical Practicce Guidelines in Oncology™. Breast Cancer online, http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/breast.pdf (2011).
3. Harris, L. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 5287-5312 (2007). (Pubitemid 350232263)
4. Goldhirsch, A. et al. Strategies for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann. Oncol. 22, 1736-1747 (2011).
5. Wirapati, P. et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 10, R65 (2008).
6. Fan, C. et al. Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 560-569 (2006). (Pubitemid 44200649)
7. Prat, A. et al. Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for ER-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen abstract. J. Clin. Oncol. 29 (Suppl.), a502 (2011).
8. Kim, C. & Paik, S. Gene-expression-based prognostic assays for breast cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 7, 340-347 (2010).
9. Sparano, J. A. & Paik, S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 721-728 (2008). (Pubitemid 351264384)
10. Fisher, B. et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1673-1682 (1997). (Pubitemid 27508191)
11. Paik, S. et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2817-2826 (2004). (Pubitemid 40051905)
12. Habel, L. A. et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res. 8, R25 (2006).
13. van't Veer, L. J. et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415, 530-536 (2002).
14. Buyse, M. et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 1183-1192 (2006). (Pubitemid 44390989)
15. van de Vijver, M. J. et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1999-2009 (2002). (Pubitemid 35461656)
16. Cardoso, F. et al. Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 729-735 (2008). (Pubitemid 351264385)
17. Sotiriou, C. et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 262-272 (2006). (Pubitemid 43264710)
18. Loi, S. et al. Definition of clinically distinct molecular subtypes in estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas through genomic grade. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 1239-1246 (2007). (Pubitemid 46640570)
19. Ma, X. J. et al. A five-gene molecular grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 2601-2608 (2008).
20. Jerevall, P. L. et al. Prognostic utility of HOXB13:IL17BR and molecular grade index in early-stage breast cancer patients from the Stockholm trial. Br. J. Cancer 104, 1762-1769 (2011).
21. Ma, X. J. et al. A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell 5, 607-616 (2004).
22. Perou, C. M. et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406, 747-752 (2000).
23. Sorlie, T. et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8418-8423 (2003). (Pubitemid 36842560)
24. Sørlie, T. et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10869-10874 (2001). (Pubitemid 32878711)
25. Perou, C. M. et al. Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9212-9217 (1999). (Pubitemid 29374734)
26. Millikan, R. C. et al. Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 109, 123-139 (2008). (Pubitemid 351538762)
27. Fan, C. et al. Building prognostic models for breast cancer patients using clinical variables and hundreds of gene expression signatures. BMC Med. Genomics 4, 3 (2011).
28. Parker, J. S. et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 1160-1167 (2009).
29. Martin, M. et al. Genomic predictors of response to doxorubicin versus docetaxel in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 128, 127-136 (2011).
30. Glück, S. et al. TP53 genomics predict higher clinical and pathologic tumor response in operable early-stage breast cancer treated with docetaxel-capecitabine ± trastuzumab. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. doi:10.1007/s10549-011-1412-7.
31. Carey, L. A. et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 2329-2334 (2007). (Pubitemid 46698581)
32. Rouzier, R. et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 5678-5678 (2005).
33. Nielsen, T. O. et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 5222-5232 (2010).
34. Geiss, G. K. et al. Direct multiplexed measurement of gene expression with color-coded probe pairs. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 317-325 (2008). (Pubitemid 351355126)
35. Prat, A. & Perou, C. M. Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer. Mol. Oncol. 5, 5-23 (2011).
36. Cheang, M. C. et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 736-750 (2009).
37. Nielsen, T. O. et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 5367-3574 (2004).
38. Cheang, M. C. et al. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 1368-1368 (2008).
39. Alexe, G. et al. High expression of lymphocyte-associated genes in node-negative HER2+ breast cancers correlates with lower recurrence rates. Cancer Res. 67, 10669-10669 (2007).
40. Teschendorff, A. E. et al.: An immune response gene expression module identifies a good prognosis subtype in estrogen receptor negative breast cancer. Genome Biol. 8, R157 (2007).
41. Lo, S. S. et al. Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 1671-1676 (2010).
42. Geffen, D. B. et al. The impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on decision making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage estrogen-receptor- positive breast cancer in an oncology practice with a unified treatment policy. Ann. Oncol. 22, 2381-2386 (2011).
43. Tsoi, D. T., Inoue, M., Kelly, C. M., Verma, S. & Pritchard, K. I. Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist 15, 457-465 (2010).
44. Hornberger, J., Cosler, L. & Lyman, G. Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am. J. Manag. Care 11, 313-324 (2005). (Pubitemid 40646936)
45. Albain, K. S. et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 11, 55-65 (2010).
46. Dowsett, M. et al. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 1829-1834 (2010).
47. Mook, S. et al. The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 116, 295-302 (2009).
48. Parker, J. et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes predict response to anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy abstract. Cancer Res. 69 (Suppl. 3), a2019 (2009).
49. Liedtke, C. et al. Genomic grade index is associated with response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 3185-3191 (2009).
50. Straver, M. E. et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 119, 551-558 (2010).
51. Gianni, L. et al. Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7265-7277 (2005). (Pubitemid 46202341)
52. Ellis, M. J. et al. Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 100, 1380-1388 (2008).
53. Ellis, M. J. et al. Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for ErbB-1-and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer: evidence from a phase III randomized trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 3808-3816 (2001). (Pubitemid 32880059)
54. Ellis, M. J. et al. Randomized phase II neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-rich stage 2 to 3 breast cancer: clinical and biomarker outcomes and predictive value of the baseline PAM50-based intrinsic subtype-ACOSOG Z1031. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 2342-2349 (2011).
55. Paik, S. et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 3726-3734 (2006). (Pubitemid 46622311)
56. Cronin, M. et al. Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX genomic diagnostic test for recurrence prognosis and therapeutic response prediction in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 53, 1084-1091 (2007). (Pubitemid 46867525)
57. Glas, A. M. et al. Converting a microarray breast cancer signature into a high throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics 7, 278 (2006).
58. Wolff, A. C. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 118-145 (2007). (Pubitemid 350003059)
59. Hammond, M. E., Hayes, D. F., Wolff, A. C., Mangu, P. B. & Temin, S. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 2784-2795 (2010).
60. Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 37-46 (1960).
61. Randolph, J. Free-marginal multirater kappa: an alternative to Fleiss' fixed-marginal multirater kappa. Joensuu University Learning and Instruction Symp. October 14-15 (2005).
62. Mackay, A. et al. Microarray-based class discovery for molecular classification of breast cancer: analysis of interobserver agreement. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 103, 662-673 (2011).
63. Weigelt, B. et al. Breast cancer molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 11, 339-349 (2010).
64. Turbin, D. A. et al. Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 110, 417-426 (2008). (Pubitemid 351962583)
65. Bueno-de-Mesquita, J. M. et al. The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment. Ann. Oncol. 21, 40-47 (2010).
66. Mudduwa, L. & Liyanage, T. Immunohistochemical assessment of hormone receptor status of breast carcinoma: interobserver variation of the quick score. Indian J. Med. Sci. 63, 21-27 (2009).
67. Wells, C. A. et al. Consistency of staining and reporting of oestrogen receptor immunocytochemistry within the European Union-an inter-laborator y study. Virchows Arch. 445, 119-128 (2004). (Pubitemid 39215542)
68. Badve, S. S. et al. Estrogen-and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 2473-2481 (2008).
69. Collins, L. C., Marotti, J. D., Baer, H. J. & Tamimi, R. M. Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 100, 218-221 (2008). (Pubitemid 351480544)
70. Parker, R. L. et al. Assessment of interlaboratory variation in the immunohistochemical determination of estrogen receptor status using a breast cancer tissue microarray. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 117, 723-728 (2002). (Pubitemid 34457006)
71. Rydén, L. et al. Reproducibility of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 analysis in primary breast cancer: a national survey performed at pathology departments in Sweden. Acta Oncol. 48, 860-866 (2009).
72. Press, M. F. et al. Diagnostic evaluation of HER-2 as a molecular target: an assessment of accuracy and reproducibility of laboratory testing in large, prospective, randomized clinical trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 6598-6607 (2005). (Pubitemid 41339000)
73. Umemura, S. et al. What causes discrepancies in HER2 testing for breast cancer? Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 130, 883-891 (2008).
74. Diaz, L. K., Gupta, R., Kidwai, N., Sneige, N. & Wiley, E. L. The use of TMA for interlaboratory validation of FISH testing for detection of HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 52, 501-507 (2004). (Pubitemid 38420384)
75. Di Palma, S. et al. A quality assurance exercise to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of chromogenic in situ hybridisation for HER2 analysis in breast cancer. J. Clin. Pathol. 61, 757-760 (2008). (Pubitemid 351859970)
76. Bartlett, J. M. et al. Evaluating HER2 amplification and overexpression in breast cancer. J. Pathol. 195, 422-428 (2001). (Pubitemid 33069666)
77. Turashvili, G. et al. Inter-observer reproducibility of HER2 immunohistochemical assessment and concordance with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH): pathologist assessment compared to quantitative image analysis. BMC Cancer 9, 165 (2009).
78. van der Vegt, B., de Bock, G. H., Bart, J., Zwartjes, N. G. & Wesseling, J. Validation of the 4B5 rabbit monoclonal antibody in determining Her2/neu status in breast cancer. Mod. Pathol. 22, 879-886 (2009).
79. Tsuda, H. et al. HER2 testing on core needle biopsy specimens from primary breast cancers: interobserver reproducibility and concordance with surgically resected specimens. BMC Cancer 10, 534 (2010).
80. Arena, V., Pennacchia, I., Monego, G., Carbone, A. & Capelli, A. Fluorescent in situ hybridization as a primary test for HER2 status in breast cancer: controversies. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, e83-e84 (2009).
81. Sauter, G., Lee, J., Bartlett, J. M., Slamon, D. J. & Presse, M. J. Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 1323-1333 (2009).
82. Perez, E. A. et al. HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 3032-3038 (2006). (Pubitemid 46638937)
83. Paik, S. et al. Real-world performance of HER2 testing-National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 852-854 (2002). (Pubitemid 34705057)
84. Regan, M. M. et al. Re-evaluating adjuvant breast cancer trials: assessing hormone receptor status by immunohistochemical versus extraction assays. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 1571-1581 (2006). (Pubitemid 44680908)
85. Cheang, M. C. et al. Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 5637-5644 (2006). (Pubitemid 46631303)
86. Harvey, J. M., Clark, G. M., Osborne, C. K. & Allred, D. C. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 1474-1481 (1999). (Pubitemid 29220854)
87. Nassar, A., Cohen, C. & Siddiqui, M. Estimation of hormone receptor status and HER2 in cytologic cell blocks from breast cancer using the novel rabbit monoclonal antibodies (SP1, SP2, and SP3). Diagn. Cytopathol. 37, 865-870 (2009).
88. Rhodes, A., Jasani, B., Barnes, D. M., Bobrow, L. G. & Miller, K. D. Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. J. Clin. Pathol. 53, 125-130 (2000). (Pubitemid 30075056)
89. Viale, G. et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1-98. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 3846-3852 (2007). (Pubitemid 47477259)
90. Regitnig, P. et al. Quality assurance for detection of estrogen and progesterone receptors by immunohistochemistry in Austrian pathology laboratories. Virchows Arch. 441, 328-334 (2002). (Pubitemid 36015595)
91. Anderson, T. J., Alexander, F. E., Lamb, J., Smith, A. & Forrest, A. P. Pathology characteristics that optimize outcome prediction of a breast screening trial. Br. J. Cancer 83, 487-492 (2000). (Pubitemid 30487862)
92. Frierson, H. F. Jr et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 103, 195-198 (1995).
93. Ellis, I. O. et al. Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J. Clin. Pathol. 59, 138-145 (2006). (Pubitemid 43235576)
94. Longacre, T. A. et al. Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod. Pathol. 19, 195-207 (2005). (Pubitemid 43117604)
95. Boiesen, P. et al. Histologic grading in breast cancer-reproducibility between seven pathologic departments. South Sweden Breast Cancer Group. Acta Oncol. 39, 41-45 (2000). (Pubitemid 30216614)
96. Sloane, J. P. et al. Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists from 12 countries in diagnosing breast disease and reporting prognostic features of carcinomas. Virchows Arch. 434, 3-10 (1999). (Pubitemid 29184895)
97. Adams, A. L., Chhieng, D. C., Bell, W. C., Winokur, T. & Hameed, O. Histologic grading of invasive lobular carcinoma: does use of a 2-tiered nuclear grading system improve interobserver variability? Ann. Diagn. Pathol. 13, 223-225 (2009).
98. Tsuda, H. et al. Evaluation of the interobserver agreement in the number of mitotic figures of breast carcinoma as simulation of quality monitoring in the Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS-BC) protocol. Jpn J. Cancer Res. 91, 451-457 (2000). (Pubitemid 30312699)
99. Reed, W. et al. The prognostic value of p53 and c-erb B-2 immunostaining is overrated for patients with lymph node negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 88, 804-813 (2000).
100. Rakha, E. et al. Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res. 12, 207 (2010).
101. Dybdal, N. et al. Determination of HER2 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization and concordance with the clinical trials immunohistochemical assay in women with metastatic breast cancer evaluated for treatment with trastuzumab. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 93, 3-11 (2005). (Pubitemid 41355986)
102. Press, M. F. et al. HER-2 gene amplification, HER-2 and epidermal growth factor receptor mRNA and protein expression, and lapatinib efficacy in women with metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 7861-7870 (2008).
103. Dressler, L. G. et al. Comparison of HER2 status by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry to predict benefit from dose escalation of adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy in node-positive breast cancer patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 4287-4297 (2005). (Pubitemid 46207003)
104. Powell, W. C. et al. A new rabbit monoclonal antibody (4B5) for the immunohistochemical (IHC) determination of the HER2 status in breast cancer: comparison with CB11, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and interlaboratory reproducibility. Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 15, 94-102 (2007). (Pubitemid 46673324)
105. Noske, A. et al. Comparison of different approaches for assessment of HER2 expression on protein and mRNA level: prediction of chemotherapy response in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio trial (NCT00544765). Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 126, 109-117 (2011).
106. Baehner, F. L. et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 assessment in a case-control study: comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction performed by central laboratories. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 4300-4306 (2010).
107. Perou, C. M., Parker, J. S., Prat, A., Ellis, M. J. & Bernard, P. S. Clinical implementation of the intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 11, 718-719 (2010).
108. Sørlie, T. et al. The importance of gene-centring microarray data. Lancet Oncol. 11, 719-720 (2010).
109. Dunning, M. J. et al. The importance of platform annotation in interpreting microarray data. Lancet Oncol. 11, 717-717 (2010).
110. Pillai, R. et al. Validation and reproducibility of a microarray-based gene expression test for tumor identification in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens. J. Mol. Diagn. 13, 48-56 (2011).
111. Hu, Z. et al. The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics 7, 96 (2006).
112. Harrell, J. C. et al. Genomic analysis identifies unique signatures predictive of brain, lung, and liver relapse. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. doi:10.1007/s10549-011-1619-7.
113. Ding, L. et al. Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 464, 999-1005 (2010).
114. Shah, S. P. et al. Mutational evolution in a lobular breast tumour profiled at single nucleotide resolution. Nature 461, 809-813 (2009).
115. Nunes, C. B. et al. Comparative analysis of six different antibodies against Her2 including the novel rabbit monoclonal antibody (SP3) and chromogenic in situ hybridisation in breast carcinomas. J. Clin. Pathol. 61, 934-938 (2008).
116. Moelans, C. B. et al. Validation of a fully automated HER2 staining kit in breast cancer. Cell Oncol. 32, 149-155 (2010).
117. Tubbs, R. R. et al. Discrepancies in clinical laboratory testing of eligibility for trastuzumab therapy: apparent immunohistochemical false-positives do not get the message. J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 2714-2721 (2001). (Pubitemid 32441377)
118. Arihiro, K. et al. Comparison of evaluations for hormone receptors in breast carcinoma using two manual and three automated immunohistochemical assays. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 127, 356-365 (2007). (Pubitemid 46806328)