Use of modified Magee equations and histologic criteria to predict the Oncotype DX recurrence score

Modern Pathology

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 921-931

  Turner, Bradley M ^a   Skinner, Kristin A ^a   Tang, Ping ^a   Jackson, Mary C ^a   Soukiazian, Nyrie ^a   Shayne, Michelle ^a   Huston, Alissa ^a   Ling, Marilyn ^a   Hicks, David G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST TUMOR; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENETICS; HUMAN; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; HUMANS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROGNOSIS; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84934437431     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.50     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:9-29.
2. Hassett MJ, Hughes ME, Niland JC, et al. Chemotherapy use for hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5553-5560.
3. Jan P, Baak A, Gudlaugsson E, et al. Proliferation is the strongest prognosticator in node-negative breast cancer: significance, error sources, alternative and comparison with molecular prognostic markers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;115:241-254.
4. Koscielny S, Tubiana M, Le MG, et al. Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination. Br J Cancer 1984;49:709-715.
5. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I, the value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19:403-410.
6. Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham DL, et al. Relation of the number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer. An NSABP update. Cancer 1983;52:1551-1557.
7. Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Chen WY, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer according to estrogen and progesterone receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:218-228.
8. Hicks DG, Kulkarni S. Trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer: the importance of accurate human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008;132:1008-1015.
9. Viale G. Pathologic work up of the primary tumor: getting the proper information out of it. The Breast 2011;20:S82-S86.
10. Allison KH. Molecular pathology of breast cancer: what a pathologist needs to know. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;138:770-780.
11. Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, et al. Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 2005;205:248-254.
12. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, nodenegative breast cancer. New Engl J Med 2004;351: 2817-2826.
13. 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 Onc 2006;24:3726-3734.
14. Ishibe N, Schully S, Freedman A, et al. Use of Oncotype DX in Women with node-positive breast cancer. PLoS Curr 2011;3:RRN1249.
15. Flanagan MB, Dabbs DJ, Brufsky AM, et al. Histopathologic variables predict Oncotype DX recurrence score. Mod Pathol 2008;21:1255-1261.
16. Klein ME, Dabbs DJ, Shuai Y, et al. Prediction of the Oncotype DX recurrence score: use of pathologygenerated equations derived by linear regression analysis. Mod Pathol 2013;26:658-664.
17. Clark BZ, Dabbs DJ, Cooper KL, et al. Impact of progesterone receptor semiquantitative immunohistochemical result on Oncotype DX recurrence score: A quality assurance study of 1074 cases. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2013;21:287-291.
18. Zbytek B, Cohen C, Wang J, et al. Nottingham-defined mitotic score: comparison with visual and image cytometric phosphohistone H3 labeling indices and correlation with Oncotype DX recurrence score. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2013;21:48-53.
19. Kraus JA, Dabbs DJ, Beriwal S, et al. Semi-quantitative immunohistochemical assay versus Oncotype DX qRTPCR assay for estrogen and progesterone receptors: an independent quality assurance study. Mod Pathol 2012;25:869-876.
20. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, et al. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4273-4278.
21. Biroschak JR, Schwartz GF, Palazzo JP, et al. Impact of Oncotype DX on treatment decisions in ER-positive, node-negative breast cancer with histologic correlation. Breast J 2013;19:269-275.
22. Lee JJ, Shen J. Is the Oncotype DX assay necessary in strongly estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers? Am Surg 2011;77:1364-1367.
23. Williams DJ, Cohen C, Darrow M, et al. Proliferation (Ki-67 and phosphohistone H3) and Oncotype DX recurrence score in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2011;19:431-436.
24. Sahebjam S, Aloyz R, Pilavdzic D, et al. Ki 67 is a major, but not the sole determinant of Oncotype DX recurrence score. Br J Cancer 2011;105:1342-1345.
25. Auerbach J, Kim M, Fineberg S. Can features evaluated in the routine pathologic assessment of lymph node-negative estrogen receptor-positive stage I or II invasive breast cancer be used to predict the Oncotype DX recurrence score? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:1697-1701.
26. Allison KH, Kandalaft PL, Sitlani CM, et al. Routine pathologic parameters can predict Oncotype DX recurrence scores in subsets of ER positive patients: who does not always need testing? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;131:413-424.
27. Tang P, Wang J, Hicks DG, et al. A lower Allred score for progesterone receptor is strongly associated with a higher recurrence score of 21-gene assay in breast cancer. Cancer Invest 2010;28:978-982.
28. 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.
29. Dabbs DJ, Klein ME, Mohsin SK, et al. High falsenegative rate of HER2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of the Oncotype DX test: An independent quality assurance study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4279-4285.
30. Joh JE, Esposito NN, Kiluk JV, et al. The effect of Oncotype DX recurrence score on treatment recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor-positive early stage breast cancer and correlation with estimation of recurrence risk by breast cancer specialists. The Oncologist 2011;16:1520-1526.
31. Hicks DG, Boyce BF. The challenge and importance of standardizing pre-analytical variables in surgical pathology specimens for clinical care and translational research. Biotech Histochem 2012;87:14-17.
32. Neumeister VM, Anagnostou V, Siddiqui S, et al. Quantitative assessment of effect of preanalytic cold ischemic time on protein expression in breast cancer tissues. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:1815-1824.
33. Goldstein NS, Hewitt SM, Taylor CR, et al. Recommendations for improved standardization of immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:124-133.
34. Yaziji H, Taylor CR, Goldstein NS, et al. Consensus recommendations on estrogen receptor testing in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2008;16:513-520.
35. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:e48-e72.
36. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:18-43.
37. Cohen DA, Dabbs DJ, Cooper KL, et al. Interobserver agreement among pathologists for semiquantitative hormone receptor scoring in breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;138:796-802.
38. Vergara-Lluri ME, Moatamed NA, Hong E, et al. High concordance between HercepTest immunohistochemistry and ERBB2 fluorescence in situ hybridization before and after implementation of American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathology 2007 guidelines. Mod Pathol 2012;25:1326-1332.
39. Yildiz-Aktas IZ, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. The effect of cold ischemic time on the immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression in invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2012;25:1098-1105.
40. Middleton LP, Price KM, Puig P, et al. Implementation of American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists HER2 Guideline Recommendations in a tertiary care facility increases HER2 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization concordance and decreases the number of inconclusive cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133: 775-780.
41. Brunelli M, Manfrin E, Martignoni G, et al. HER-2/neu assessment in breast cancer using the original FDA and new ASCO/CAP guideline recommendations: impact on selecting patients for herceptin therapy. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;129:907-911.
42. Fitzgibbons PL, Dillon DA, Alsabeh R et al. Template for reporting results of biomarker testing specimens from patients with carcinoma of the breast. version: Breast Biomarkers 1.1.0.0. College of American Pathologists, 2014. Available from http://www.cap.org/can cerprotocols. (Accessed 6 April 2014).
43. 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.
44. Genomic Health Annual Report 2012.
45. Sparano JA, Paik S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:721-728.
46. Acs G, Esposito NN, Kiluk J, et al. A mitotically active, cellular tumor stroma and/or inflammatory cells associated with tumor cells may contribute to intermediate or high Oncotype DX recurrence score in low-grade invasive breast carcinomas. Mod Pathol 2012;25: 556-566.
47. Rouzier R, Pronzato P, Chéreau E, et al. Multigene assays and molecular markers in breast cancer: systematic review of health economic analyses. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;139:621-637.
48. Vataire AL, Laas E, Aballeá S, et al. Cost-effetiveness of a chemotherapy predictive test. Bull Cancer 2012;99: 907-914.
49. Blohmer JU, Rezai M, Kümmel S, et al. Using the 21-gene assay to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisionmaking in early-stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the German setting. J Med Econ 2013;16: 30-40.
50. Carlson JJ, Roth JA. 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.
51. Kelly CM, Krishnamurthy S, Bianchni G, et al. Utility of Oncotype DX risk estimates in clinically intermediate risk hormone receptor-positive, Her-2-normal, grade II, lymph node-negative breast cancers. Cancer 2010;116:5161-5167.
52. Brufsky A. Precision Oncology in breast cancer: better than ever, or less than before. Breast J 2013;19: 355-356.
53. Milburn M, Rosman M, Mylander C, et al. Is Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) of prognostic value once Her2-positive and low-ER expression patients are removed? Breast J 2013;19:357-364.
54. Schmidt M, Untch M. Prediction of benefit from chemotherapy in ER-positive/Her-2 negative breast cancer-a problem still to be solved. Ann Oncol 2014;25:754.