Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Compared With Standard Clinicopathologic Guidelines in Adjuvant Therapy Selection for Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The development of multigene assays has proved useful in the clinical management of early-stage breast cancer. The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay has been shown to quantify risk of distant recurrence and predict chemotherapy benefit in node-negative and node-positive, estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer patients. Small, single-institution series have shown that, compared with standard clinicopathologic criteria, use of RS significantly affects adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of RS use and its effect on chemotherapy recommendations in node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer patients at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Patient and tumor characteristics and adjuvant treatment information were obtained on 183 patients with RS results between January 2004 and October 2009. Risk categories were assigned based on the RS and on standard clinicopathologic criteria according to guidelines from NCCN, St. Gallen, and Adjuvant!.

Results

A total of 14 patients were excluded for negative ER status (n = 2), insufficient data (n = 4), inclusion in TAILORx trial (n = 7), and recurrent breast cancer (n = 1), leaving 169 patients in the cohort. RS use increased 3-fold over the study period (from 18% in 2004 to 50% in 2009). Tumor grade, ER status, and PR status were significantly correlated with RS category. Overall concordance between RS and NCCN, St. Gallen, and Adjuvant! was 10, 48, and 50%, respectively. Depending on the guideline used for comparison, adjuvant therapy recommendations changed with the addition of the RS in 27–74% of cases.

Conclusions

RS use is increasing, and the assay significantly reduced adjuvant chemotherapy utilization in node-negative, ER -positive breast cancer patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO, Burstein HJ, Carter WB, Edge SB, et al. Breast cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7:122–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dunnwald LK, Rossing MA, Li CI. Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics, and prognosis: a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Emir B, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1673–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J, Anderson S, Dignam J, Fisher ER, et al. Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2004;364:858–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98:10869–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Van De Vijver M, He YD, Van t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van ‘t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:530–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Foekens JA, Atkins D, Zhang Y, Sweep FC, Harbeck N, Paradiso A, et al. Multicenter validation of a gene expression-based prognostic signature in lymph node-negative primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1665–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goetz MP, Suman VJ, Ingle JN, Nibbe AM, Visscher DW, Reynolds CA, 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;12:2080–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jansen MP, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Ritstier K, Meijer-van Gelder ME, van Staveren IL, et al. HOXB13-to-IL17BR expression ratio is related with tumor aggressiveness and response to tamoxifen of recurrent breast cancer: a retrospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:662–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wales C, Forbes J, Mallon L, Salter J, et al. Risk of distant recurrence using oncotype DX in postmenopausal primary breast cancer patients treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. Cancer Res. 2008;69 (suppl.):75s, Abstract 53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, Capra A, Alexander C, Pho M, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1183–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Dahiya S, Wang W, Carney E, Durbecq V, et al. A five-gene molecular grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:2601–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5287–312.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Network NCC: Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Invasive Breast Cancer. www.NCCN.org, v.2, 2008.

  18. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1319–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3726–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sparano JA. TAILORx: trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx). Clin Breast Cancer. 2006;7:347–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and of cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer. An overview of 61 randomized trials among 28,896 women. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1681–92.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fisher B, Dignam J, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond C et al. Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1982–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher B, Redmond C, Dimitrov NV, Bowman D, Legault-Poisson S, Wickerham DL, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-negative tumors. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:473–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998;352:930–42.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, Citron ML, Budman DR, Goldstein LJ, et al. Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA. 2006;295:1658–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy. 133 randomised trials involving 31,000 recurrences and 24,000 deaths among 75,000 women. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1992;339:71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Flanagan MB, Dabbs DJ, Brufsky AM, Beriwal S, Bhargava R. Histopathologic variables predict Oncotype DX recurrence score. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:1255–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolf I, Ben-Baruch N, Shapira-Frommer R, Rizel S, Goldberg H, Yaal-Hahoshen N, et al. Association between standard clinical and pathologic characteristics and the 21-gene recurrence score in breast cancer patients: a population-based study. Cancer. 2008;112:731–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lo SS, Mumby PB, Norton J, Rychlik K, Smerage J, Kash 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;28:1671–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rayhanabad JA, Difronzo LA, Haigh PI, Romero L. Changing paradigms in breast cancer management: introducing molecular genetics into the treatment algorithm. Am Surg. 2008;74:887–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Asad J, Jacobson AF, Estabrook A, Smith SR, Boolbol SK, Feldman SM, et al: Does oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer? Am J Surg. 2008;196:527–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Henry LR, Stojadinovic A, Swain SM, Prindiville S, Cordes R, Soballe PW. The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:319–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sparano JA, Paik S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:721–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S, Childs BH, Yoshizawa C, Rowley S, 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;26:4063–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mamounas E, Budd GT, Miller K. Incorporating the Oncotype DX breast cancer assay into community practice: An expert Q & A and case study sampling. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2008;6:s1–s8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gradishar W. Skeletal issues and bone health in patients with cancer. Introduction. Oncology (Williston Park). 2009;23:7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J. Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer. 2007;109:1011–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bogaerts J, Cardoso F, Buyse M, Braga S, Loi S, Harrison JA, et al. Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2006;3:540–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Eleftherios P. Mamounas: Speaker’s Bureau, Genomic Health Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH, USA

    Jessica F. Partin MD

  2. Aultman Health Foundation, Canton, OH, USA

    Eleftherios P. Mamounas MD, MPH, FACS

  3. Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio, USA

    Jessica F. Partin MD & Eleftherios P. Mamounas MD, MPH, FACS

Authors
  1. Jessica F. Partin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleftherios P. Mamounas MD, MPH, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica F. Partin MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Partin, J.F., Mamounas, E.P. Impact of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Compared With Standard Clinicopathologic Guidelines in Adjuvant Therapy Selection for Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18, 3399–3406 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1698-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1698-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation