Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The impakt 2012 working group consensus statement

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 647-654

  Azim, J ^a   Michiels, S ^a   Zagouri, F ^b   Delaloge, S ^c   Filipits, M ^b   Namer, M ^d   Neven, P ^e   Symmans, W F ^f   Thompson, A ^g   Andre F ^c   Loi, S ^a   Swanton, C ^h,i  

^a JULES BORDET INSTITUTE   (Belgium)

^b MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^c INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^d Polyclinique Saint George   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^h London Research Institute   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Genomic signatures; Prediction; Prognosis

Indexed keywords

21 GENE RECURRENCE SCORE; ARTICLE; ASSAY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER REGISTRY; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSENSUS; GENE ASSAY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMIC TEST; HISTOPATHOLOGY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EXPERT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; VALIDITY;

EID: 84874572643     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds645     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al.. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406: 747-752.
2. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al.. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 10869-10874.
3. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM et al.. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 10393-10398.
4. Sotiriou C, Pusztai L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med; 2009 360: 790-800.
5. Henry LR, Stojadinovic A, Swain SM et al.. The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99: 319-323.
6. Lo SS, Mumby PB, Norton J 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 2010; 28: 1671-1676.
7. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 1975.
8. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE et al.. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009; 11: 3-14.
9. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genet Med ;2009; 11: 66-73.
10. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK et al.. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8: R25.
11. Cronin M, Sangli C, Liu ML 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 2007; 53: 1084-1091.
12. Drury S, Salter J, Baehner FL et al.. Feasibility of using tissue microarray cores of paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue for measurement of gene expression: a proof-of-concept study. J Clin Pathol 2010; 63: 513-517.
13. Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L et al.. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 1183-1192.
14. Ach RA, Floore A, Curry B et al.. Robust interlaboratory reproducibility of a gene expression signature measurement consistent with the needs of a new generation of diagnostic tools. BMC Genomics 2007; 8: 148.
15. Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R et al.. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 6012-6020.
16. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al.. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2817-2826.
17. Esteva FJ, Sahin AA, Cristofanilli M et al.. Prognostic role of a multigene reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in patients with node-negative breast cancer not receiving adjuvant systemic therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 3315-3319.
18. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al.. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2006; 24: 3726-3734.
19. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak 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 Oncol2010; 11: 55-65.
20. Michiels S, Koscielny S, Hill C. Interpretation of microarray data in cancer. Br J Cancer 2007; 96: 1155-1158.
21. Ioannidis JP, Allison DB, Ball CA et al.. Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nat Genet 2009; 41: 149-155.
22. Mook S, Schmidt MK, Viale G 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 2009; 116: 295-302.
23. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ et al.. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1999-2009.
24. van 't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al.. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002; 415: 530-536.
25. Mook S, Knauer M, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM et al.. Metastatic potential of T1 breast cancer can be predicted by the 70-gene MammaPrint signature. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17: 1406-1413.
26. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC et al.. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1160-1167.
27. Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S 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 2010; 16: 5222-5232.
28. Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S et al.. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 262-272.
29. Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C et al.. Definition of clinically distinct molecular subtypes in estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas through genomic grade. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1239-1246.
30. Jerevall PL, Ma XJ, Li H et al.. Prognostic utility of HOXB13:IL17BR and molecular grade index in early-stage breast cancer patients from the Stockholm trial. Br J Cancer 2011; 104: 1762-1769.
31. Jankowitz RC, Cooper K, Erlander MG et al.. Prognostic utility of the breast cancer index and comparison to Adjuvant! Online in a clinical case series of early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2011; 13: R98.
32. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al.. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5287-5312.
33. Rapport 2009 sur l'etat des connaissances relatives aux biomarqueurs tissulaires uPA-PAI-1, Oncotye DX et MammaPrint dans la prise en charge du cancer du sein. Institut National du Cancer 2009.
34. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS 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 2011; 22: 1736-1747.
35. Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S 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; 2008; 10: R65.
36. Mook S, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ et al.. Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of prognosis calculation for breast cancer with the online Adjuvant! program: a hospital-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 1070-1076.
37. Olivotto IA, Bajdik CD, Ravdin PM et al.. Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2716-2725.
38. Tang G, Cuzick J, Costantino JP et al.. Risk of recurrence and chemotherapy benefit for patients with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: recurrence score alone and integrated with pathologic and clinical factors. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4365-4372.
39. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1446-1452.
40. Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A et al.. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4706-4713.
41. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Lang I et al.. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol 2010; 29: 2011-2019