Genomic profiling in luminal breast cancer

Breast Care

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 414-422

  Gluz, Oleg ^a   Hofmann, Daniel ^a   Würstlein, Rachel ^b   Liedtke, Cornelia ^c   Nitz, Ulrike ^a   Harbeck, Nadia ^b  

^a Bethesda Monchengladbach GmbH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biomarker; Breast cancer; Gene expression; Luminal breast cancer; Prognostic markers

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER PROGNOSIS; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE SEQUENCE; GENOMICS; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LUMINAL BREAST CANCER; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MULTIGENE FAMILY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SYMPOSIUM; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; LUMINAL A BREAST CANCER; LUMINAL B BREAST CANCER; POINT MUTATION; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 84892414644     PISSN: 16613791     EISSN: 16613805     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000357535     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Davies C, et al.: Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 2013;381: 805-816.
2. Baselga J, et al.: Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366: 520-529.
3. Perou CM, et al.: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000;406:747.
4. Sorlie T, et al.: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 10869-10874.
5. Mackay A, et al.: Microarray-based class discovery for molecular classification of breast cancer: analysis of interobserver agreement. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103: 662-673.
6. Sorlie T, et al.: Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:8418- 8423.
7. Weigelt B, et al.: Breast cancer molecular profiling with single sample predictors: A retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:339.
8. Parker JS, et al.: Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2009;27: 1160-1167.
9. Nielsen TO, 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.
10. Chia SK, et al.: A 50-Gene intrinsic subtype classifier for prognosis and prediction of benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:4465- 4472.
11. Ellis M, et al.: ACOSOG Z1031: A randomized neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole (LET), anastrozole (ANA) and exemestane (EXE) for postmenopausal women with ER rich stage 2/3 breast cancer: Biomarker outcomes and the predictive value of the baseline PAM50 based intrinsic subtype. Cancer Res 2011;71(suppl 1):S1-2.
12. Cheang MCU, et al.: Responsiveness of intrinsic subtypes to adjuvant anthracycline substitution in the NCIC.CTG MA.5 randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18: 2402-2412.
13. Martín M, et al.: PAM50 proliferation score as a predictor of weekly paclitaxel benefit in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;138: 457-466.
14. Esserman L, et al.: Chemotherapy response and recurrence-free survival in neoadjuvant breast cancer depends on biomarker profiles: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;132: 1049-1062.
15. Gnant M, et al.: Prpredicting risk for late metastasis: The PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score after 5 years of endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer: A study on 1,478 patients from the ABCSG-8 trial. Ann Oncol 2013;24(suppl 3):iii29.
16. Sestak I, et al.: Factors predicting late recurrence for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105: 1504-1511.
17. Gnant M, et al.: Identifying clinically relevant prognostic subgroups in node-positive postmenopausal HR+ early breast cancer patients treated with endocrine therapy: A combined analysis of 2,485 patients from ABCSG-8 and ATAC using the PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score and intrinsic subtype. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 2013; 31(15-suppl):506.
18. Ding L, et al.: Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 2010;464: 999-1005.
19. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012;490: 61-70.
20. 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 2008;10:R65.
21. 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 2011;22: 1736-1747.
22. Dowsett M, et al.: Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103: 1656-1664.
23. Nielsen T, et al.: An international Ki67 reproducibility study. Cancer Res 2012;72(24 suppl):S4-6.
24. Denkert C, et al.: Ki67 levels as predictive and prognostic parameters in pretherapeutic breast cancer core biopsies: A translational investigation in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio trial. Ann Oncol 2013;24: 2786-2793.
25. Gluz O, et al.: The prognostic and predictive impact of genomic grade index (GGI) versus central grade or molecular class in intermediate-risk breast cancer (BC): Results from the EC-Doc trial. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 2013;31(15-suppl):1092.
26. Sotiriou C, et al.: Independent validation of genomic grade in the BIG 1-98 study. Cancer Res 2012;72(24 suppl):S4-4.
27. Hugh J, et al.: Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: Use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27: 1168-1176.
28. Penault-Llorca F, et al.: Ki67 Expression and docetaxel efficacy in patients with estrogen receptorpositive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2809- 2815.
29. Alba E, et al.: Chemotherapy (CT) and hormonotherapy (HT) as neoadjuvant treatment in luminal breast cancer patients: Results from the GEICAM/ 2006-03, a multicenter, randomized, phase-II study. Ann Oncol 2012;23: 3069-3074.
30. Viale G, et al.: Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: Results from Breast International Group Trial 1-98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole. J Clin Oncol 2008;26: 5569-5575.
31. Von Minckwitz G, et al.: Correlation of various pathologic complete response (pCR) definitions with long-term outcome and the prognostic value of pCR in various breast cancer subtypes: Results from the German neoadjuvant meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(suppl):abstr 1028.
32. Goldhirsch A, et al.: Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: Highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013;24: 2206-2223.
33. Bartlett JMS, et al.: Mammostrat as an immunohistochemical multigene assay for prediction of early relapse risk in the Tamoxifen versus Exemestane Adjuvant Multicenter Trial Pathology Study. J Clin Oncol 2012;30: 4477-4484.
34. Dowsett M, et al.: Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol 2013;31: 2783-2790.
35. Prat A, et al.: Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31: 203-209.
36. Gluz O, et al.: PR expression in luminal breast cancer. Senology 2013;accepted.
37. Hofmann D, et al.: WSG ADAPT - adjuvant dynamic marker-adjusted personalized therapy trial optimizing risk assessment and therapy response prediction in early breast cancer: study protocol for a prospective, multi-center, controlled, non-blinded, randomized, investigator initiated phase II/III trial. Trials 2013;14:261.
38. Paik S, et al.: A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351: 2817-2826.
39. Paik S, et al.: Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estro-gen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24: 3726-3734.
40. Tang G, 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.
41. 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 2005;23: 7265-7277.
42. 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 2010;28: 1829-1834.
43. Albain KS, 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 2010;11: 55-65.
44. Goldstein LJ, et al.: Prognostic utility of the 21- gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol 2008;26: 4063-4071.
45. Mamounas E, et al.: Association between the 21- gene recurrence score (RS) and benefit from adjuvant paclitaxel (Pac) in node-positive (N+), ERpositive breast cancer patients (pts): Results from NSABP B-28. Cancer Res 2012;72(24 suppl):S1-10.
46. Mamounas EP, et al.: Prognostic impact of the 21- gene recurrence score (RS) on loco-regional recurrence (LRR) of node-positive, ER-positive breast cancer patients (pts) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: Results from NSABP B-28. Cancer Res 2012;72(24 suppl):P6-07-01.
47. Solin L, et al.: Prognostic value of biologic subtype and the 21-gene recurrence score relative to local recurrence after breast conservation treatment with radiation for early stage breast carcinoma: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E2197 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 134: 683-692.
48. King TA, et al.: Prognostic impact of the 21-gene recurrence score in patients presenting with stage IV breast cancer. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 2013;31(15-suppl):507.
49. Carlson J, et al.: The impact of the oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;141: 13-22.
50. Theriault RL, et al.: Breast Cancer, Version 3.2013. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013;11: 753-761.
51. 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 2007;25: 5287-5312.
52. van 't Veer LJ, et al.: Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002;415:530.
53. Buyse M, et al.: Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with nodenegative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 1183-1192.
54. 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 2009; 116:295.
55. Mook S, et al.: The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. Ann Oncol 2010;21: 717-722.
56. Drukker C, et al.: Gene expression profiling to predict the risk of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer. Cancer Res 2012;72(24 suppl):P2-10-42.
57. Knauer M, et al.: The predictive value of the 70- gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 120: 655-661.
58. Esserman LJ, et al.: Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: Results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL - CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol 2012;30: 3242-3249.
59. Gluck S, et al.: Response and long-term outcomes after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy: Pooled dataset of patients stratified by molecular subtyping using MammaPrint and BluePrint. Cancer Res 2012; 72(24 suppl):P3-06-11.
60. Drukker CA, et al.: A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 2013;133:929- 936.
61. Piccart M, et al.: The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT (microarray in node negative and 1 to 3 positive lymph node disease may avoid chemotherapy) Trial: Patients' Baseline Characteristics and Logistics Aspects After a Successful Accrual. Eur J Cancer 2011;47(suppl 2):7.
62. Filipits M, 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.
63. Dubsky P, et al.: EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013;24: 640-647.
64. Dubsky P, et al.: The EndoPredict score identifies late distant metastases in ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2012;72(24 suppl):S4-3.
65. Sotiriou C, 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.
66. Loi S, et al.: Definition of clinically distinct molecular subtypes in estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas through genomic grade. J Clin Oncol 2007;25: 1239-1246.
67. Bertucci F, et al.: Comparison of the prognostic value of genomic grade index, Ki67 expression and mitotic activity index in early node-positive breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2013;24: 625-632.
68. Liedtke C, et al.: The Genomic Grade Index (GGI) is associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27: 3185-91.
69. Goetz MP, et al.: A two-gene expression ratio of homeobox 13 and interleukin-17B receptor for prediction of recurrence and survival in women receiving adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12: 2080-2087.
70. Ma X.-J, et al.: The HOXB13:IL17BR expression index is a prognostic factor in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24: 4611-4619.
71. 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 2008;14: 2601-2608.
72. Jerevall PL, 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.
73. Zhang Y, et al.: Breast cancer index identifies early- stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients at risk for early- and late-distant recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19: 4196-4205.
74. Sgroi DC, et al.: Prediction of late disease recurrence and extended adjuvant letrozole benefit by the HOXB13/IL17BR biomarker. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105: 1036-1042.
75. Symmans WF, et al.: Genomic index of sensitivity to endocrine therapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28: 4111-4119.
76. Viale G, et al.: Pathological assessment of discordant cases for molecular (BluePrint and MammaPrint) versus clinical subtypes for breast cancer among 621 patients from the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 (MINDACT) trial. Cancer Res 2012;72(24 suppl):P3-05-02.
77. Gluz O, et al.: S4-3: Prospective comparison of risk assessment tools in early breast cancer (Recurrence Score, uPA/PAI-1, central grade, and luminal subtypes): Final correlation analysis from the phase III WSG-Plan B Trial. Cancer Res 2012; 71(24 suppl):S4-3.
78. Varga Z, et al.: Comparison of EndoPredict and Oncotype DX test results in hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer. PLoS One 2013; 8:e58483.
79. Prat A, et al.: Concordance among gene expression- based predictors for ER-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. Ann Oncol 2012;23: 2866-2873.
80. Habel L, 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.
81. Ach R, 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.
82. Kronenwett R, et al.: Decentral gene expression analysis: analytical validation of the Endopredict genomic multianalyte breast cancer prognosis test. BMC Cancer 2012;12:456.
83. Drury S, et al.: Feasibility of using tissue microarray cores of paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue for measurement of gene expression: A proofof- concept study. J Clin Pathol 2010;63: 513-517.
84. Müller BM, et al.: Comparison of the RNA-based EndoPredict multigene test between core biopsies and corresponding surgical breast cancer sections. J Clin Pathol 2012;65: 660-662.
85. Müller BM, et al.: The EndoPredict gene-expression assay in clinical practice - performance and impact on clinical decisions. PLoS One 2013; 8:e68252.
86. Albanell J, et al.: Prospective transGEICAM study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay and traditional clinicopathological factors on adjuvant clinical decision making in women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) node-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2012;23: 625-631.
87. Cheang MC, et al.: Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101: 736-750.