Search Results (10)

Introduction: Therapeutic decisions in early breast cancer are based on clinico-pathological features which are subject to intra- and inter-observer variability. This single-center decision impact study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Prosigna assay on physicians’ adjuvant treatment choices. Methods: Between 09/2017 and 02/2018, formalin-fixed tumor samples from 52 newly diagnosed, postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (T1–T2; pN0-N1a) patients were analyzed. Pre-test clinical judgements and Prosigna test results were compared. Results: The mean age was 59 (42–77). Invasive ductal carcinoma (79.2%), grade 2 (52.8%) and T1c-N0 tumors (43.4%) were represented. There was 40.4% discordance between the pre- and post-test risk of recurrences. No significant change was observed in the clinical intermediate risk category, while there was a net reclassification of low-risk patients into a high Prosigna recurrence risk group. In addition, clinically determined intrinsic subtypes were 34.6% discordant with the Prosigna results, which is largely driven by the reclassification of the luminal A tumors into the Prosigna-assessed luminal B group. Before the Prosigna test, endocrine treatment was the primary choice in 20 patients (39.2%), and chemotherapy was recommended to 31 patients (60.8%). Overall, the Prosigna assay led to a change in treatment choice for one patient. Conclusions: Although conventional risk assessment methods are relatively inexpensive with shorter turnaround times, their accuracy and value for risk reduction are suboptimal. According to our results, the Prosigna assay was found to be a relevant tool for the clinical decision making process. Long-term follow-up of these patients will elucidate the potential benefits of using multigene molecular tests as biomarkers for treatment. Full article

Multigene prognostic genomic assays have become indispensable in managing early breast cancer (EBC), offering crucial information for risk stratification and guiding adjuvant treatment strategies in conjunction with traditional clinicopathological parameters. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines endorse these assays, though some clinical contexts still lack definitive recommendations. The dynamic landscape of EBC management demands further refinement and optimization of genomic assays to streamline their incorporation into clinical practice. The breast cancer community is poised at the brink of transformative advances in enhancing the clinical utility of genomic assays, aiming to significantly improve the precision and effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment for women with EBC. This article methodically examines the testing methodologies, clinical validity and utility, costs, diagnostic frameworks, and methodologies of the established genomic tests, including the Oncotype Dx Breast Recurrence Score^®, MammaPrint, Prosigna^®, EndoPredict^®, and Breast Cancer Index (BCI). Among these tests, Prosigna and EndoPredict^® have at present been validated only on a prognostic level, while Oncotype Dx, MammaPrint, and BCI hold both a prognostic and predictive role. Oncologists and pathologists engaged in the management of EBC will find in this review a thorough comparison of available genomic assays, as well as strategies to optimize the utilization of the information derived from them. Full article

Background: Breast cancer has been categorized into molecular subtypes using immunohistochemical staining (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) since the early 2000s. However, recent research suggests that gene expression testing, specifically Prosigna^® Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50 (PAM50), provides more accurate classification methods. In this retrospective study, we compared the results of IHC/FISH and PAM50 testing. We also examined the impact of various PAM50 parameters on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: We analyzed 42 unilateral breast cancer samples, with 18 classified as luminal A, 10 as luminal B, 8 as Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, and 6 as basal-like using PAM50. Interestingly, 17 out of the 42 samples (40.47%) showed discordant results between histopathological assessment and the PAM50 classifier. While routine IHC/FISH resulted in classification differences for a quarter to a third of samples within each subtype, all basal-like tumors were misclassified. Hormone receptor-positive tumors (hazard rate: 8.7803; p = 0.0085) and patients who had higher 10-year recurrence risk scores (hazard rate: 1.0539; p = 0.0201) had shorter OS and PFS. Conclusions: Our study supports the existing understanding of molecular subtypes in breast cancer and emphasizes the overlap between clinical characteristics and molecular subtyping. These findings underscore the value of gene expression profiling, such as PAM50, in improving treatment decisions for breast cancer patients. Full article

In intermediate risk hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative breast cancer (BC), the decision regarding adjuvant chemotherapy might be facilitated by multigene expression tests. In all, 142 intermediate risk BCs were investigated using the PAM50-based multigene expression test Prosigna® in a prospective multicentric study. In 119/142 cases, Prosigna® molecular subtyping was compared with local and two central (C1 and C6) molecular-like subtypes relying on both immunohistochemistry (IHC; HRs, HER2, Ki-67) and IHC + tumor grade (IHC+G) subtyping. According to local IHC, 35.4% were Luminal A-like and 64.6% Luminal B-like subtypes (local IHC+G subtype: 31.9% Luminal A-like; 68.1% Luminal B-like). In contrast to local and C1 subtyping, C6 classified >2/3 of cases as Luminal A-like. Pairwise agreement between Prosigna® subtyping and molecular-like subtypes was fair to moderate depending on molecular-like subtyping method and center. The best agreement was observed between Prosigna® (53.8% Luminal A; 44.5% Luminal B) and C1 surrogate subtyping (Cohen’s kappa = 0.455). Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested to 44.2% and 88.6% of Prosigna® Luminal A and Luminal B cases, respectively. Out of all Luminal A-like cases (locally IHC/IHC+G subtyping), adjuvant chemotherapy was recommended if Prosigna® testing classified as Prosigna® Luminal A at high / intermediate risk or upgraded to Prosigna® Luminal B. Full article

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy among women in Canada. Adjuvant treatment in early BC can reduce the risk of BC recurrence. Historically, the decision for adjuvant chemotherapy for early BC was made only based on clinical and tumour characteristics. In recent years, there has been an effort toward developing genomic assays as a predictive and prognostic tool to improve precision in estimating disease recurrence, sensitivity to systemic treatment and ultimately with clinical utility for guidance regarding adjuvant systemic treatment(s). There are various commercial genomic tests available for early-stage ER+/HER-2 negative BC. This paper will review the Oncotype DX 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS), MammaPrint, EndoPredict, Prosigna^®, and Breast Cancer Index (BCI) genomic assays. We will also focus on these genomic assays’ clinical application and utility in node-positive early-stage BC based on the most recent evidence and guidance recommendations. Full article

Molecular signatures to guide decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy are recommended in early ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The objective of this study was to assess what impact gene-expression-based risk testing has had following its recommendation by Swedish national guidelines. Postmenopausal women with ER-positive, HER2-negative and node negative breast cancer at intermediate clinical risk and eligible for chemotherapy were identified retrospectively from five Swedish hospitals. Tumor characteristics, results from Prosigna^® test and final treatment decision were available for all patients. Treatment recommendations were compared with the last version of regional guidelines before the introduction of routine risk signature testing. Among the 360 included patients, 41% (n = 148) had a change in decision for adjuvant treatment based on Prosigna^® test result. Out of the patients with clinical indication for adjuvant chemotherapy, 52% (n = 118) could avoid treatment based on results from Prosigna^® test. On the contrary, 23% (n = 30) of the patients with no indication were escalated to receive adjuvant chemotherapy after testing. Ki67 could not distinguish between the Prosigna^® risk groups or intrinsic subtypes and did not significantly differ between patients in which decision for adjuvant therapy was changed based on the test results. In conclusion, we report the first real-world data from implementation of gene-expression-based risk assessment in a Swedish context, which may facilitate the optimization of future versions of the national guidelines. Full article

Objective: The purpose of this guideline is to determine the clinical utility of multigene profiling assays in individuals with early-stage invasive breast cancer. Methods: This guideline was developed by Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario)’s Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) through a systematic review of relevant literature, patient- and caregiver-specific consultation and internal and external reviews. Recommendation 1: In patients with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, clinicians should consider using multigene profiling assays (i.e., Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna, EndoPredict, and the Breast Cancer Index) to help guide the use of systemic therapy. Recommendation 2: In patients with early-stage node-negative ER-positive/HER2-negative disease, clinicians may use a low-risk result from Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna, EndoPredict/EPclin, or Breast Cancer Index assays to support a decision not to use adjuvant chemotherapy. Recommendation 3: In patients with node-negative ER-positive/HER2-negative disease, clinicians may use a high-risk result from Oncotype DX to support a decision to offer chemotherapy. A high Oncotype DX recurrence score is capable of predicting adjuvant chemotherapy benefit. Recommendation 4: In postmenopausal patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative tumours and one to three nodes involved (N1a disease), clinicians may withhold chemotherapy based on a low-risk Oncotype DX or MammaPrint score if the decision is supported by other clinical, pathological, or patient-related factors. Recommendation 5: The evidence to support the use of molecular profiling to select the duration of endocrine therapy is evolving. In patients with ER-positive disease, clinicians may consider using a Breast Cancer Index (H/I) high assay result to support a decision to extend adjuvant endocrine therapy if the decision is supported by other clinical, pathological, or patient-related factors. Full article

The PAM50 gene expression subtypes and the associated risk of recurrence (ROR) score are used to predict the risk of recurrence and the benefits of adjuvant therapy in early-stage breast cancer. The Prosigna assay includes the PAM50 subtypes along with their clinicopathological features, and is approved for treatment recommendations for adjuvant hormonal therapy and chemotherapy in hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer. The Prosigna test utilizes RNA extracted from macrodissected tumor cells obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections. However, RNA extracted from fresh-frozen (FF) bulk tissue without macrodissection is widely used for research purposes, and yields high-quality RNA for downstream analyses. To investigate the impact of the sample preparation approach on ROR scores, we analyzed 94 breast carcinomas included in an observational study that had available gene expression data from macrodissected FFPE tissue and FF bulk tumor tissue, along with the clinically approved Prosigna scores for the node-negative, hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative cases (n = 54). ROR scores were calculated in R; the resulting two sets of scores from FFPE and FF samples were compared, and treatment recommendations were evaluated. Overall, ROR scores calculated based on the macrodissected FFPE tissue were consistent with the Prosigna scores. However, analyses from bulk tissue yielded a higher proportion of cases classified as normal-like; these were samples with relatively low tumor cellularity, leading to lower ROR scores. When comparing ROR scores (low, intermediate, and high), discordant cases between the two preparation approaches were revealed among the luminal tumors; the recommended treatment would have changed in a minority of cases. Full article

The concept of precision medicine has been around for many years and recent advances in high-throughput sequencing techniques are enabling this to become reality. Within the field of breast cancer, a number of signatures have been developed to molecularly sub-classify tumours. Notable examples recently approved by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK to guide treatment decisions for oestrogen receptors (ER)+ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)- patients include Prosigna^® test, EndoPredict^®, and Oncotype DX^®. However, a population of still unmet need are those with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Accounting for 15–20% of patients, this population has comparatively poor prognosis and as yet no targeted treatment options. Studies have shown that some patients with TNBC respond favourably to DNA damaging drugs (carboplatin) or agents which inhibit DNA damage response (poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors). Known to be a heterogeneous population, there is a need to identify further TNBC patients who may benefit from these treatments. A number of signatures have been identified based on association with treatment response or specific genetic features/pathways however many of these were not restricted to TNBC patients and as of yet are not common practice in the clinic. Full article

Background: This clinical practice guideline was developed to determine the level of evidence supporting the clinical utility of commercially available multigene profiling assays and to provide guidance about whether certain breast cancer patient populations in Ontario would benefit from alternative tests in addition to Oncotype DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.). Methods: A systematic electronic Ovid search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases sought out systematic reviews and primary literature. A systematic review and practice guideline was written by a working group and was then reviewed and approved by Cancer Care Ontario’s Molecular Oncology Advisory Committee. Results: Twenty-four studies assessing the clinical utility of Oncotype DX, Prosigna (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.), EndoPredict (Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, U.S.A.), and MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.) were included in the evidence base. Conclusions: The clinical utility of multigene profiling assays is currently established for an appropriate subset of patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer for whom a decision to give chemotherapy is difficult to make. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive tumours who receive tamoxifen alone, Oncotype DX, Prosigna, and EndoPredict validly identify a low-risk population with favourable outcomes, indicating that a low-risk assay result is actionable and the decision to withhold chemotherapy is supported. Clinical evidence indicates that a high Oncotype DX recurrence score can predict for chemotherapy benefit, but a high Prosigna or EndoPredict score, although prognostic, is not, based on clinical trial evidence, directly actionable. Prosigna and EndoPredict are statistically more likely to identify a population at risk for recurrence beyond 5 years, but that information is currently not actionable because of a lack of interventional studies. Full article