Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7985 on May 23 2006
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 24, No 23 (August 10), 2006: pp. 3726-3734
© 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Gene Expression and Benefit of Chemotherapy in Women With Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer
Soonmyung Paik,
Gong Tang,
Steven Shak,
Chungyeul Kim,
Joffre Baker,
Wanseop Kim,
Maureen Cronin,
Frederick L. Baehner,
Drew Watson,
John Bryant,
Joseph P. Costantino,
Charles E. Geyer, Jr,
D. Lawrence Wickerham,
Norman Wolmark
From the Division of Pathology, Operations Center, and Biostatistical Center, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project; Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh; Department of Human Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA; Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, CA; and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Address reprint requests to Soonmyung Paik, MD, NSABP Foundation, Four Allegheny Center, 5th floor, East Commons Professional Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15212; e-mail: soon.paik{at}nsabp.org
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Purpose The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay quantifies the likelihood of distant recurrence in women with estrogen receptor–positive, lymph node–negative breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. The relationship between the RS and chemotherapy benefit is not known.
Methods The RS was measured in tumors from the tamoxifen-treated and tamoxifen plus chemotherapy–treated patients in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B20 trial. Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to test for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and the RS.
Results A total of 651 patients were assessable (227 randomly assigned to tamoxifen and 424 randomly assigned to tamoxifen plus chemotherapy). The test for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and RS was statistically significant (P = .038). Patients with high-RS ( 31) tumors (ie, high risk of recurrence) had a large benefit from chemotherapy (relative risk, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.53; absolute decrease in 10-year distant recurrence rate: mean, 27.6%; SE, 8.0%). Patients with low-RS (< 18) tumors derived minimal, if any, benefit from chemotherapy treatment (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.46 to 3.78; absolute decrease in distant recurrence rate at 10 years: mean, –1.1%; SE, 2.2%). Patients with intermediate-RS tumors did not appear to have a large benefit, but the uncertainty in the estimate can not exclude a clinically important benefit.
Conclusion The RS assay not only quantifies the likelihood of breast cancer recurrence in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but also predicts the magnitude of chemotherapy benefit.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
The use of adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of early-stage node-negative breast cancer has increased greatly in the last decade in the United States.1 Ideally, the decision to use chemotherapy in addition to hormonal therapy in the treatment of axillary node–negative and estrogen receptor (ER) –positive breast cancer should be based on not only baseline risk (prognostic information) but also prediction of degree of benefit from chemotherapy.2,3 Current treatment guidelines in the United States and Europe recommend consideration of chemotherapy for the vast majority of patients.4-7
A number of biologic and clinical clues have suggested that not all patients derive the same degree of benefit from chemotherapy. An overview of randomized trials suggests that younger women may benefit more from chemotherapy than older women.8,9 Diagnostic tests that predict clinical benefit from chemotherapy are not yet available for routine clinical use.
Gene expression analysis in individual tumors is a promising approach for defining responsiveness to chemotherapy.10 Several small studies have been performed in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, and gene expression profiles have been associated with the likelihood of pathologic complete response.11-13
Taking advantage of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) clinical trials archived paraffin block tissue bank, we have developed and validated a 21-gene assay that is now offered as a commercial reference laboratory test (Oncotype DX, Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, CA).14,15 The 21-gene panel includes genes involved in tumor cell proliferation and hormonal response, characteristics that have been reported to be associated with chemotherapy response in general. We explored the interaction between Oncotype DX assay and chemotherapy benefit using tissue blocks collected from NSABP trial B20 which tested the worth of adding cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) or methotrexate and fluorouracil (MF) chemotherapy to 5 years of tamoxifen in the treatment of node-negative, ER-positive patients.16 We sought to determine whether the prespecified 21-gene reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay predicts the benefit of chemotherapy in the NSABP B20 patients.
|
METHODS
|
|---|
Patients
NSABP Protocol B20, "A Clinical Trial to Determine the Worth of Chemotherapy and Tamoxifen Over Tamoxifen Alone in the Management of Patients with Primary Invasive Breast Cancer, Negative Axillary Nodes and Estrogen-Receptor-Positive Tumors," enrolled 2,363 patients between October 17,1988, and March 5, 1993, who were randomly assigned to tamoxifen versus tamoxifen plus either CMF or MF.16 This study was approved by the Essex Institutional Review Board (IRB; Lebanon, NJ), the Allegheny General Hospital IRB (Pittsburgh, PA), and the University of Pittsburgh IRB (Pittsburgh, PA).
Sample Preparation, Genes, Recurrence Score Algorithm
Gene expression in fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissue was performed by Genomic Health Inc, using the previously described Oncotype DX assay.14,15 After RNA extraction and DNase I treatment, total RNA content was measured, and the absence of DNA contamination was verified. Gene-specific reverse transcription was performed followed by quantitative TaqMan RT-PCR reactions in 384 well plates using Applied Biosystems (Foster City, CA) PRISM 7900HT instruments.
Expression of each gene was measured in triplicate, and normalized relative to a set of five reference genes (beta-actin [ACTB], GAPDH, GUS, RPLPO, and TFRC). Reference-normalized expression measurements range from 0 to 15; a one-unit increase reflects approximately a two-fold increase in RNA.
The recurrence score (RS) is calculated on a scale from 0 to 100 and is derived from the reference-normalized expression measurements for the 16 cancer-related genes (Ki67, STK15, Survivin or BIRC5, CCNB1 or cyclin B1, MYBL2, GRB7, HER2, ER, PGR, BCL2, SCUBE2, MMP11 or stromelysin 3, CTSL2 or cathepsin L2, GSTM1, CD68, and BAG1) and the five reference genes.
The cutoff points that were prespecified before the performance of the validation study of the RS,15 which categorized patients into low-risk (RS < 18), intermediate-risk (RS 18 and < 31), and high-risk (RS 31) groups, were also prespecified in this study.
Study Design and End Points
Patients were eligible if a tumor block was available in the NSABP Tumor Bank. Exclusion criteria were insufficient tumor (< 5% of the overall tissue) as assessed by histopathology, insufficient RNA (< 0.5 µg), or weak RT-PCR signal (average cycle threshold for the reference genes > 35).
The objective of this study was to determine whether the RS predicts the magnitude of chemotherapy benefit. Because there was no significant difference between the two chemotherapy treatments in the overall study, we prespecified that the two chemotherapy arms would be combined for the primary analysis. Although the tamoxifen arm of B20 had been analyzed as a training set in the development of the Oncotype DX assay as previously reported,15,17 a preliminary version of the RT-PCR assay (lacking standardized reagents, calibrators, and controls) had been used. Therefore, for this study, the tamoxifen arm was analyzed again using the commercial assay (Oncotype DX). The B20 samples from the chemotherapy-treated patients had not been analyzed previously.
The primary prespecified end point was freedom from distant recurrence. Contralateral disease, other second primary cancers, and deaths before distant recurrence were considered censoring events. Ipsilateral breast recurrence, local chest wall recurrence, and regional recurrences were not considered either as events or as censoring events.
ER and progesterone receptor (PR) were measured by the ligand-binding assay.16 Tumor grade was determined centrally by two board-certified pathologists (T.G. and F.L.B.) from Stanford University Medical Center (Stanford, CA) and University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine (San Francisco, CA) using the Elston modification of the Bloom-Richardson grading criteria.18 In addition, histologic grade reported by the site pathologist was analyzed.
Statistical Analysis
Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to examine the interaction between chemotherapy treatment and RS as a continuous variable. The likelihood ratio test for interaction compared the reduced model, which excluded the RS by treatment interaction, with the competing full model, which included the RS by treatment interaction. A P value less than .05 for the likelihood ratio test was considered significant. Analysis was also performed using the predefined RS risk categories (low, intermediate, and high risk). Secondary analyses were performed to examine clinical variables as well as the individual genes and gene group scores (eg, proliferation gene group score) that define the RS for their main effects and for their interaction with treatment.
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
Patient Demographics
There were 2,299 clinically eligible patients. Blocks containing sufficient invasive breast cancer were available for 670 patients. In the remaining patients, the blocks were either never obtained by NSABP or were exhausted from use in prior studies. RT-PCR was successful in more than 97% of the blocks that were analyzed, and gene expression results were obtained in 651 patients, 227 of 770 tamoxifen-treated and 424 of 1,529 chemotherapy-treated clinically eligible patients. Distributions of patient age, tumor size, tumor grade, and hormone status in the 651 patients assessable for this study were similar to those in all 2,299 clinically eligible NSABP B20 patients (Table A1, online-only appendix).
Among the 651 assessable patients with RT-PCR assay data, the Kaplan-Meier estimate for the proportion of patients without distant recurrence at 10 years was 92.2% for patients treated with tamoxifen plus chemotherapy and 87.8% for those treated with tamoxifen alone. Kaplan-Meier estimates for the proportion of patients without any relapse (locoregional or distant) at 10 years were 90.1% and 83.5%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival at 10 years were 89.5% and 86.4%, respectively.
Correlation Between RS and Standard Prognostic Factors
There were 353 patients (54.2%) in the low-risk group (RS < 18), 134 patients (20.6%) in the intermediate-risk group (RS 18 to 30), and 164 patients (25.2%) in the high-risk group (RS 31).
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the RS and other prognostic factors, including patient age at the time of diagnosis, tumor size, hormone-receptor status (measured by biochemical assay), and histologic grade performed by two central pathologists as well as the grade reported in the site’s pathology reports. There was a modest concordance between RS and patient age. Although RS was associated with PR by ligand-binding and poor histologic grade, a large numbers of cases were discordant. For example, there were cases of tumors with low RSs that had low PR by ligand-binding or poor tumor grade. In addition, there was only modest agreement in assessment of histologic grade among the three pathologists (Tables A2-A4, online-only appendix).
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
|
Fig 1. Distributions of recurrence score (RS) and standard prognostic factors. (A) RS v age; (B) RS v clinical tumor size; (C) RS v estrogen receptor (ER) by ligand binding; (D) RS v progesterone receptor (PR) by ligand binding; (E) RS by tumor grade (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project site pathologists); (F) RS by tumor grade (F.L.B.); (G) RS by tumor grade (T.G.).
|
|
Effect of Chemotherapy for Patient Groups Defined by the RS
The Kaplan-Meier plots and estimates of the proportion of patients distant recurrence–free for each of the RS risk categories are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1, respectively. The magnitude of the chemotherapy benefit was greater for the high-risk patients (RS 31) than for the intermediate- (RS, 18 to 30) or low-risk patients (RS < 18). There was a large benefit of chemotherapy in the high-risk patients, whereas there was minimal, if any, benefit of chemotherapy in the low-risk patients. The 10-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from distant recurrence was improved from 60% to 88% by adding chemotherapy to tamoxifen in the high-risk group.
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
|
Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier plots for distant recurrence comparing treatment with tamoxifen (Tam) alone versus treatment with tamoxifen plus chemotherapy (Tam + chemo). (A) All patients; (B) low risk (recurrence score [RS] < 18); (C) intermediate risk (RS 18-30); (D) high risk (RS 31). The number of patients at risk and the number of distant recurrences (in parentheses) are provided below each part of the figure.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Kaplan-Meier Estimates of the Proportion of Patients Free of Distant Recurrence at 10 Years for Tamoxifen-Treated Patients and Tamoxifen Plus Chemotherapy-Treated Patients
|
|
The relative and absolute benefits of chemotherapy for RS risk groups are shown in Figure 3. Although no demonstrable reduction in distant recurrence at 10 years for the predefined low risk category was evident (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.46 to 3.78; increase of 1.1% in absolute risk), a large reduction in distant recurrence at 10 years was evident for the high-risk category (relative risk, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.53; decrease of 27.6% in absolute risk). The benefit from chemotherapy was less clear for patients in the intermediate-risk group (relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.59; 1.8% increase in absolute risk). Similar trends were observed for freedom from locoregional and/or distant recurrence and overall survival (Figs A1 and A2, online-only appendix).
Similar results were observed when chemotherapy benefit was analyzed in the CMF and MF groups separately (data not shown).
Relationship of the RS and Chemotherapy Treatment Benefit
To test the statistical strength of the relationship between the magnitude of chemotherapy benefit and RS, a formal test of statistical interaction between the RS as a continuous variable and chemotherapy treatment was performed. In a multivariate analysis of Cox models containing chemotherapy treatment and RS as a continuous variable without and with the addition of a term for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and RS, the likelihood ratio test for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and RS was significant (P = .038).
In addition, individual multivariate models for the interaction between RS and chemotherapy treatment that were adjusted for other variables (including patient age, tumor size, ER, PR, tumor grade by each pathologist, including site, G.T., and F.L.B.) demonstrated persistence of the strength of the interaction between RS and chemotherapy treatment (P = .035 to .068).
To explore the degree of benefit from chemotherapy in relationship to RS as a continuous function, the likelihood of distant recurrence was fit as a linear function of the RS for both the tamoxifen alone and tamoxifen plus chemotherapy arms (Fig 4). A linear fit was used because the tests for nonlinearity of RS in Cox proportional hazards models were not significant in this study (P = .32 and .73 for the tamoxifen and tamoxifen plus chemotherapy arms, respectively).19 The magnitude of chemotherapy benefit appeared to increase continuously as the RS increased. A clear cutoff point for RS, below which there is no demonstrable benefit from chemotherapy, cannot be accurately defined.
Gene Expression and Chemotherapy Benefit: Clinical Variables, Individual Genes, and Gene Groups
The interaction of chemotherapy treatment with the clinical variables and with all the individual genes and gene group scores are shown in Table 2.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. Likelihood Ratio Tests of the Interaction of Chemotherapy Treatment With the Clinical Variables and the Gene Expression Variables
|
|
For the 651 assessable patients, there was no significant interaction between the clinical variables and chemotherapy treatment. Hazard ratios for the interaction of age, hormone receptors, and tumor grade with chemotherapy treatment were, however, in the anticipated directions.
There was a trend for higher expression by RT-PCR of each of the five proliferation genes to be associated with chemotherapy benefit. There was a trend for lower expression of PR, ER, and the ER gene group to be associated with chemotherapy benefit. No interaction was evident between either HER2 or GRB7 and chemotherapy treatment.
For the clinical variables, we also examined the interaction with chemotherapy treatment in the entire NSABP B20 cohort as well. As reported previously,8 the interaction between chemotherapy treatment and patient age reached statistical significance (P < .05) when the entire B20 cohort was examined. However, the degree of interaction of chemotherapy treatment and gene expression is stronger than that for the clinical variables, suggesting that the RS is the strongest predictor of chemotherapy benefit.
|
DISCUSSION
|
|---|
Patients with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer in the NSABP B20 study did not benefit equally from chemotherapy. The prespecified 21-gene RT-PCR assay predicted the magnitude of benefit of either CMF or MF chemotherapy. The likelihood ratio test for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and RS was statistically significant (P = .038). Patients with tumors who had high RSs ( 31) experienced a large chemotherapy benefit (relative risk, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.53), with a mean absolute decrease in distant recurrence rate at 10 years of 27.6% (SE, 8.0%). Patients with tumors that had low RSs (RS < 18) derived minimal, if any, benefit from chemotherapy treatment (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.46 to 3.78), with a mean absolute decrease in distant recurrence rate at 10 years of –1.1% (SE, 2.2%). Patients with tumors that had intermediate RSs (RS, 18 to 30) did not appear to receive a substantial benefit, but the uncertainty in the estimate (relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.59) can not exclude a clinically important benefit from chemotherapy treatment.
It should be noted that samples from the NSABP B20 tamoxifen-treated patients were used in one of the three studies used to select the 21 genes and to design the RS algorithm.15,17 However, samples from the NSABP B20 tamoxifen plus chemotherapy–treated patients were not previously analyzed or used in the Oncotype DX development. Moreover, results from analysis of the NSABP B14 tamoxifen-treated patients (also not used in the development of the RS) were very similar to the results from analysis of the NSABP B20 tamoxifen-treated patients.
Few previous studies have examined biomarkers in patient cohorts from randomized trials comparing chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. Studies that have examined the relationship between the response of tumors to chemotherapy and factors such as histologic grade and DNA ploidy have yielded inconsistent results.20-25 However, tumors with characteristics associated with greater aggressiveness (eg, poor histologic grade, high levels of uPA/PA-1, ER negativity, high proliferative index) tended to respond better to chemotherapy.26-29 In addition, there were trends for statistical interaction between clinical variables and chemotherapy benefit when all the NSABP B20 patients were examined (Table 2).8 The 21-gene RT-PCR assay brings a high degree of precision and standardization to the quantification of important biologic characteristics of individual breast cancers. The RS calculation integrates the contribution of proliferation related genes and hormone receptor pathway genes. The data from this study indicates that greater chemotherapy benefit is observed in patients whose tumors have high RSs.
The clinical implications of these results for patients with low or relatively high RSs are relatively clear. For many women with low RSs, the anticipated benefit of adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy may not exceed the risks. For many women with high RSs, the anticipated benefit of adding chemotherapy appears to be very favorable when compared with the risks. However, for women with intermediate RSs, it is uncertain that the benefits of chemotherapy exceed the risks. Additional study of the benefits and risks of chemotherapy in this middle range of patients is needed. The National Cancer Institute (NCI; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) Program for the Assessment of Clinical Cancer Tests (PACCT) Strategy Group, in collaboration with US Breast Intergroup, including NSABP, is considering a study that will further refine our ability to select patients for chemotherapy with RSs in the middle range.30 However the results of the planned study will be available only after 2010, and until such time the results of Oncotype DX assay will have to be considered in the context of other clinical parameters in the selection of candidates for chemotherapy.
These data have implications with respect to cancer pathogenesis and metastasis. Adjuvant chemotherapy targets micrometastatic cells present after removal of primary tumor. Success in predicting chemotherapy benefit using analysis of the primary tumor implies that primary tumor and micromestastatic cells share molecular characteristics. Recent studies indicate that, overall, tumor molecular signatures tend to be preserved across different stages of tumor progression.31,32 Our published studies with the 21-gene RS as well as other gene expression profiling studies demonstrate that expression profiling of the primary tumor can predict distant disease recurrence.15,31,33,34 However, eventual tissue tropism of the metastases or survival of tumor cells in specific organ sites might require differential expression of certain genes in only a subset of the original tumor population.35,36 Animal model system results from Massague’s group35 suggest that although metastatic cells need to acquire a specific set of genes for organotropic metastasis, their basic driving force is still governed by poor-prognosis genes in the primary tumor. Our results suggest that poor prognosis genes also influence chemotherapy response.
The relevance of this study with CMF chemotherapy to other regimens is under investigation. In a study of 89 patients with locally advanced breast cancer, Gianni et al13 found that the RS also positively correlated with the probability of a pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant treatment with an anthracycline/taxane regimen. Patients with tumors with low RSs (< 18) rarely had a pathologic complete response. This suggests that relationship between the RS and chemotherapy benefit is not regimen specific. Whether there are specific predictor genes for particular chemotherapeutic drugs or regimens is not yet established. The NSABP trial B40 has been designed to address this question.
In summary, the RS assay not only quantifies the likelihood of breast cancer recurrence in women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer, it also predicts the magnitude of chemotherapy benefit. The results of this and other studies strongly suggest that not all women with breast cancer benefit equally from chemotherapy.
|
Appendix
|
|---|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table A3. Pairwise Comparison of Assessments of Tumor Grade by Central Pathologist (F.L.B.) and the NSABP Study Site Pathologist
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table A4. Pairwise Comparison of Assessments of Tumor Grade by Central Pathologist (T.G.) and the NSABP Study Site Pathologist
|
|
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
|
Fig A1. Kaplan-Meier plots for proportion relapse free comparing treatment with tamoxifen (Tam) alone versus treatment with tamoxifen plus chemotherapy (Tam + chemo). (A) All patients; (B) low risk (recurrence score [RS] < 18); (C) intermediate risk (RS, 18-30); (D) high risk (RS 31). The number of patients at risk and the number of relapses (in parentheses) are provided below each part of the figure.
|
|
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
|
Fig A2. Kaplan-Meier plots for overall survival comparing treatment with tamoxifen (Tam) alone versus treatment with tamoxifen plus chemotherapy (Tam + chemo). (A) All patients; (B) low risk (recurrence score [RS] < 18); (C) intermediate risk (RS, 18-30); (D) high risk (RS 31). The number of patients at risk and the number of deaths (in parentheses) are provided below each part of the figure.
|
|
|
Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest
|
|---|
Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following authors or their immediate family members indicated a financial interest. No conflict exists for drugs or devices used in a study if they are not being evaluated as part of the investigation. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO’s conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.
| Authors |
Employment |
Leadership |
Consultant |
Stock |
Honoraria |
Research Funds |
Testimony |
Other |
|
| Steven Shak |
Genomic Health (N/R) |
Genomic Health (C) |
|
Genomic Health (C) |
|
|
|
|
| Joffre Baker |
Genomic Health (N/R) |
Genomic Health (C) |
|
Genomic Health (C) |
|
|
|
|
| Maureen Cronin |
Genomic Health (N/R) |
|
|
Genomic Health (B) |
|
|
|
|
| Frederick L. Baehner |
Genomic Health (N/R) |
|
|
Genomic Health (B) |
|
|
|
|
| Drew Watson |
Genomic Health (N/R) |
|
|
Genomic Health (B) |
|
|
|
|
| Charles E. Geyer Jr |
|
|
|
|
Genomic Health (A) |
|
|
|
|
Dollar Amount Codes (A) < $10,000 (B) $10,000-99,999 (C) $100,000 (N/R) Not Required
|
Author Contributions
|
|---|
| Conception and design: Soonmyung Paik, Gong Tang, Steven Shak, Joffre Baker, Maureen Cronin, Frederick L. Baehner, Drew Watson, John Bryant, Joseph P. Costantino, D. Lawrence Wickerham, Norman Wolmark
Financial support: Steven Shak, Joffre Baker
Provision of study materials or patients: Soonmyung Paik, Steven Shak, Chungyeul Kim, Joffre Baker, Wanseop Kim, Maureen Cronin
Collection and assembly of data: Soonmyung Paik, Steven Shak, Chungyeul Kim, Joffre Baker, Wanseop Kim, Maureen Cronin, Frederick L. Baehner, Drew Watson, John Bryant, Joseph P. Costantino
Data analysis and interpretation: Soonmyung Paik, Gong Tang, Steven Shak, Joffre Baker, Maureen Cronin, Frederick L. Baehner, Drew Watson, John Bryant, Joseph P. Costantino, Charles E. Geyer Jr
Manuscript writing: Soonmyung Paik, Gong Tang, Steven Shak, Joffre Baker, Maureen Cronin, Frederick L. Baehner, Drew Watson, John Bryant, Joseph P. Costantino, Charles E. Geyer Jr
Final approval of manuscript: Soonmyung Paik, Gong Tang, Steven Shak, Chungyeul Kim, Joffre Baker, Wanseop Kim, Maureen Cronin, Frederick L. Baehner, Drew Watson, John Bryant, Joseph P. Costantino, Charles E. Geyer Jr, D. Lawrence Wickerham, Norman Wolmark
|
|
GLOSSARY
|
|---|
- RT-PCR (reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction):
- PCR is a method that allows logarithmic amplification of short DNA sequences within a longer, double-stranded DNA molecule. Gene expression can be measured after extraction of total RNA and preparation of cDNA by a reverse-transcription step. Thus, RT-PCR enables the detection of PCR products on a real-time basis, making it a sensitive technique for quantitating changes in gene expression.
- Gene expression profile:
- The expression of a set of genes in a biologic sample (eg, blood, tissue) using microarray, reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, or other technology capable of measuring gene expression.
- Gene expression analysis:
- Technique for the simultaneous quantification of the mRNA expression level of thousands of genes. Can be performed using microarrays, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, or other technologies for measuring gene expression.
- Recurrence Score:
- The Recurrence Score is a number between 0 and 100 that corresponds to a specific likelihood of breast cancer recurrence within 10 years of initial diagnosis. The score is derived from a mathematical function combining the expression values of 16 breast cancer–related genes and five reference genes.
- 21-gene reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay:
- A 21-gene prognostic profile that has become a powerful predictor of outcomes in patients with breast cancer and outperforms currently used standard diagnostic criteria to predict development of future metastases and overall survival in patients with breast cancer. The 21-gene signature has been validated and is commercially available.
- SCUBE2:
- Gene coding for signal peptide, CUB domain, EGF-like 2 protein, an endothelial cell–associated, secreted glycoprotein.
- CTSL2 (cathepsin L2):
- A protein belonging to the papain family. CTSL2 is the gene for a cysteine proteinase enzyme, which may function in protein turnover, antigen presentation, and bone remodeling.
- Bcl2:
- A gene that codes for an antiapoptotic protein that protects cells from programmed cell death by preventing the activation of proapoptotic caspase proteins.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
We thank Tracy George, MD, (Stanford University). We are also grateful for contribution of Melanie Finnigan, Melanie Prior, William Hiller, and Teresa Oeller at NSABP Division of Pathology for data management and histology, and Teresa Bradley and Joyce Mull at NSABP Operation Center for their assistance in regulatory issues. We acknowledge the contributions of others at Genomic Health including Randy Scott, PhD, Anhthu Nguyen, Mei-Lan Liu, PhD, Mylan Pho, Jennie Jeong, Heidi Cheng, Debjani Dutta, Jay Snable, Jenny Wu, Claire Alexander, Lauren Intagliata, and Chithra Sangli. We also acknowledge Clifford Hudis, MD, Peter Ravdin, MD, Stefan Gluck, MD, Elizabeth Tan-Chiu, MD, JoAnne Zujewski, MD, Jeff Abrams, MD, Sheila Taube, MD, Gabriel Hortobagyi, MD, Larry Norton, MD, and George Sledge, MD, for their helpful advice and suggestions.
|
NOTES
|
|---|
published online ahead of print at www.jco.org on May 23, 2006.
Supported by Public Health Service Grants No. U10-CA-12027, U10-CA-69651, U10-CA-37377, and U10-CA-69974 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; and by Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, CA.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
Terms in blue are defined in the glossary, found at the end of this article and online at www.jco.org.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
1. Mariotto A, Feuer EJ, Harlan LC, et al: Trends in use of adjuvant multi-agent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for breast cancer in the United States: 1975-1999. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1626-1634, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]2. Henderson IC, Patek AJ: The relationship between prognostic and predictive factors in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:261-288, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 3. Hayes DF, Trock B, Harris AL: Assessing the clinical impact of prognostic factors: When is "statistically significant" clinically useful? Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:305-319, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 4. Bast RC Jr, Ravdin P, Hayes DF, et al: 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: Clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 19:1865-1878, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text] 5. Eifel P, Axelson JA, Costa J, et al: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:979-989, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text] 6. Carlson RW, Edge SB, Theriault RL: NCCN: Breast cancer. Cancer Control 8:54-61, 2001 (suppl 2)[Medline] 7. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, et al: Meeting highlights: Updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:3357-3365, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text] 8. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J, 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 364:858-868, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 9. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG): Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687-1717, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 10. Buchholz TA, Stivers DN, Stec J, et al: Global gene expression changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for human breast cancer. Cancer J 8:461-468, 2002[Medline] 11. Ayers M, Symmans WF, Stec J, et al: Gene expression profiles predict complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:2284-2293, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text] 12. Chang JC, Wooten EC, Tsimelzon A, et al: Gene expression profiling for the prediction of therapeutic response to docetaxel in patients with breast cancer. Lancet 362:362-369, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 13. Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K, 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 23:7265-7277, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. Cronin M, Pho M, Dutta D, et al: Measurement of gene expression in archival paraffin-embedded tissues: Development and performance of a 92-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay. Am J Pathol 164:35-42, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text] 15. 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 351:2817-2826, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text] 16. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al: Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1673-1682, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text] 17. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al: Multi-gene RT-PCR assay for predicting recurrence in node negative breast cancer patients: NSABP studies B-20 and B-14. Breast Cancer Res Treat 82:S10-S11, 2003 (abstr 16) 18. 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 19:403-410, 1991[Medline] 19. Gray RJ: Flexible methods for analyzing survival data using splines, with applications to breast cancer prognosis. J Am Stat Assoc 87:942-951, 1992[CrossRef] 20. Hayward JL, Rubens RD, Carbone PP, et al: Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer: A project of the programme on clinical oncology of the International Union against Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland. Eur J Cancer 14:1291-1292, 1978[Medline] 21. Masters JR, Camplejohn RS, Millis RR, et al: Histological grade, elastosis, DNA ploidy and the response to chemotherapy of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 55:455-457, 1987[Medline] 22. Owainati AA, Robins RA, Hinton C, et al: Tumour aneuploidy, prognostic parameters and survival in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 55:449-454, 1987[Medline] 23. Aas T, Geisler S, Paulsen T, et al: Primary systemic treatment with weekly doxorubicin monotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer; clinical experience and parameters predicting outcome. Acta Oncol 35:5-8, 1996 (suppl 5)[Medline] 24. Sjostrom J, Krajewski S, Franssila K, et al: A multivariate analysis of tumour biological factors predicting response to cytotoxic treatment in advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 78:812-815, 1998[Medline] 25. Page DL, Gray R, Allred DC, et al: Prediction of node-negative breast cancer outcome by histologic grading and S-phase analysis by flow cytometry: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (2192). Am J Clin Oncol 24:10-18, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 26. Lippman ME, Allegra JC, Thompson EB, et al: The relation between estrogen receptors and response rate to cytotoxic chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 298:1223-1228, 1978[Abstract] 27. Colleoni M, Viale G, Zahrieh D, et al: Chemotherapy is more effective in patients with breast cancer not expressing steroid hormone receptors: A study of preoperative treatment. Clin Cancer Res 10:6622-6628, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text] 28. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, et al: Effects of improvements in chemotherapy on disease-free and overall survival of estrogen-receptor negative, node-positive breast cancer: 20-year experience of the CALGB U.S. Breast Intergroup. Breast Cancer Res Treat 98:S17, 2004 (abstr 29) 29. Albain K, Barlow W, O'Malley F, et al: Concurrent (CAFT) versus sequential (CAF-T) chemohormonal therapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil, tamoxifen) versus T alone for postmenopausal, node-positive, estrogen (ER) and/or progesterone (PgR) receptor-positive breast cancer: Mature outcomes and new biologic correlates on phase III intergroup trial 0100 (SWOG-8814). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004 (abstr 37) 30. Jessup JM, Lively TG, Taube SE: Program for the Assessment of Clinical Cancer Tests (PACCT): Implementing promising assays into clinical practice. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 5:271-273, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 31. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747-752, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 32. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Tuggle JT, et al: Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:5974-5979, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text] 33. 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 347:1999-2009, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text] 34. 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 U S A 100:10393-10398, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text] 35. Kang Y, Siegel PM, Shu W, et al: A multigenic program mediating breast cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer Cell 3:537-549, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 36. Minn AJ, Gupta GP, Siegel PM, et al: Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to lung. Nature 436:518-524, 2005[CrossRef][Medline]
Submitted November 10, 2005;
accepted April 18, 2006.
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
Related Editorial
- A Step in the Right Direction
Sandra M. Swain
JCO 2006 24: 3717-3718
[Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
P Lao-Sirieix, A Boussioutas, S R Kadri, M O'Donovan, I Debiram, M Das, L Harihar, and R C Fitzgerald
Non-endoscopic screening biomarkers for Barrett's oesophagus: from microarray analysis to the clinic
Gut,
November 1, 2009;
58(11):
1451 - 1459.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. B. Ambrosone, W. E. Barlow, W. Reynolds, R. B. Livingston, I-T. Yeh, J.-Y. Choi, W. Davis, J. M. Rae, L. Tang, L. R. Hutchins, et al.
Myeloperoxidase Genotypes and Enhanced Efficacy of Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer in SWOG-8897
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 20, 2009;
27(30):
4973 - 4979.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. M. Sikov, D. S. Dizon, R. Strenger, R. D. Legare, K. P. Theall, T. A. Graves, J. S. Gass, T. A. Kennedy, and M. A. Fenton
Frequent Pathologic Complete Responses in Aggressive Stages II to III Breast Cancers With Every-4-Week Carboplatin and Weekly Paclitaxel With or Without Trastuzumab: A Brown University Oncology Group Study
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2009;
27(28):
4693 - 4700.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. B. Julian
If Sentinel Node Micrometastases Are the Question, Are Clinical Trials the Answer?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2009;
27(28):
4640 - 4641.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A H Sims
Bioinformatics and breast cancer: what can high-throughput genomic approaches actually tell us?
J. Clin. Pathol.,
October 1, 2009;
62(10):
879 - 885.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Robson and S. Verma
Anthracyclines in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Is It the End of an Era?
Oncologist,
October 1, 2009;
14(10):
950 - 958.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Pusztai, J.-H. Jeong, Y. Gong, J. S. Ross, C. Kim, S. Paik, R. Rouzier, F. Andre, G. N. Hortobagyi, N. Wolmark, et al.
Evaluation of Microtubule-Associated Protein-Tau Expression As a Prognostic and Predictive Marker in the NSABP-B 28 Randomized Clinical Trial
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 10, 2009;
27(26):
4287 - 4292.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cianfrocca and W. Gradishar
New Molecular Classifications of Breast Cancer
CA Cancer J Clin,
September 1, 2009;
59(5):
303 - 313.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. L.H. Snozek, D. J. O'Kane, and A. Algeciras-Schimnich
Pharmacogenetics of Solid Tumors: Directed Therapy in Breast, Lung, and Colorectal Cancer: A Paper from the 2008 William Beaumont Hospital Symposium on Molecular Pathology
J. Mol. Diagn.,
September 1, 2009;
11(5):
381 - 389.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J. Mandrekar and D. J. Sargent
Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Biomarker Validation: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Challenges
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 20, 2009;
27(24):
4027 - 4034.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. J. Burstein, I. Souter, H. A. D'Alessandro, and D. C. Sgroi
Case 25-2009 -- A 36-Year-Old Woman with Hormone-Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med.,
August 13, 2009;
361(7):
699 - 707.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Correa Geyer and J. S. Reis-Filho
Microarray-based Gene Expression Profiling as a Clinical Tool for Breast Cancer Management: Are We There Yet?
International Journal of Surgical Pathology,
August 1, 2009;
17(4):
285 - 302.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Gwin, M. Pinto, and F. A Tavassoli
Complementary Value of the Ki-67 Proliferation Index to the Oncotype DX Recurrence Score
International Journal of Surgical Pathology,
August 1, 2009;
17(4):
303 - 310.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Goldhirsch, J. N. Ingle, R. D. Gelber, A. S. Coates, B. Thurlimann, H.-J. Senn, and Panel members
Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2009
Ann. Onc.,
August 1, 2009;
20(8):
1319 - 1329.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Higgins and V. Stearns
Understanding Resistance to Tamoxifen in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
Clin. Chem.,
August 1, 2009;
55(8):
1453 - 1455.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. H. Barrios, C. Sampaio, J. Vinholes, and R. Caponero
What is the role of chemotherapy in estrogen receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer?
Ann. Onc.,
July 1, 2009;
20(7):
1157 - 1162.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Penault-Llorca, F. Andre, C. Sagan, M. Lacroix-Triki, Y. Denoux, V. Verriele, J. Jacquemier, M. C. Baranzelli, F. Bibeau, M. Antoine, et al.
Ki67 Expression and Docetaxel Efficacy in Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 10, 2009;
27(17):
2809 - 2815.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Badve, F. L. Baehner, R. P. Gray, B. H. Childs, T. Maddala, M.-L. Liu, S. C. Rowley, S. Shak, E. A. Perez, L. J. Shulman, et al.
Reply to J.M. Guinebretiere and L. Arnould et al
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 1, 2009;
27(16):
2734 - 2735.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. U. Buzdar
Role of biologic therapy and chemotherapy in hormone receptor- and HER2-positive breast cancer
Ann. Onc.,
June 1, 2009;
20(6):
993 - 999.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.-J. Cheng, Y.-C. Lin, M.-T. Tsai, C.-S. Chen, M.-C. Hsieh, C.-L. Chen, and R.-B. Yang
SCUBE2 Suppresses Breast Tumor Cell Proliferation and Confers a Favorable Prognosis in Invasive Breast Cancer
Cancer Res.,
April 15, 2009;
69(8):
3634 - 3641.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Roukos
Twenty-One-Gene Assay: Challenges and Promises in Translating Personal Genomics and Whole-Genome Scans Into Personalized Treatment of Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 10, 2009;
27(8):
1337 - 1338.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Goldstein and J. A. Sparano
In Reply
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 10, 2009;
27(8):
1338 - 1339.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Parker, M. Mullins, M. C.U. Cheang, S. Leung, D. Voduc, T. Vickery, S. Davies, C. Fauron, X. He, Z. Hu, et al.
Supervised Risk Predictor of Breast Cancer Based on Intrinsic Subtypes
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 10, 2009;
27(8):
1160 - 1167.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Vinh-Hung, H. M. Verkooijen, G. Fioretta, I. Neyroud-Caspar, E. Rapiti, G. Vlastos, C. Deglise, M. Usel, J.-M. Lutz, and C. Bouchardy
Lymph Node Ratio as an Alternative to pN Staging in Node-Positive Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 1, 2009;
27(7):
1062 - 1068.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Sotiriou and L. Pusztai
Gene-Expression Signatures in Breast Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med.,
February 19, 2009;
360(8):
790 - 800.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. van Agthoven, A. M. Sieuwerts, M. E. Meijer-van Gelder, M. P. Look, M. Smid, J. Veldscholte, S. Sleijfer, J. A. Foekens, and L. C.J. Dorssers
Relevance of Breast Cancer Antiestrogen Resistance Genes in Human Breast Cancer Progression and Tamoxifen Resistance
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 1, 2009;
27(4):
542 - 549.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Bergh
Quo Vadis With Targeted Drugs in the 21st Century?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 1, 2009;
27(1):
2 - 5.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Badve and H Nakshatri
Oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: towards bridging histopathological and molecular classifications
J. Clin. Pathol.,
January 1, 2009;
62(1):
6 - 12.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. G. Morris, H. L. McArthur, C. T. Dang, and C. A. Hudis
Selection of Appropriate Patients for Anthracycline Therapy
ASCO Educational Book,
January 1, 2009;
2009(1):
11 - 18.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Dowsett and A. K. Dunbier
Emerging Biomarkers and New Understanding of Traditional Markers in Personalized Therapy for Breast Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
December 15, 2008;
14(24):
8019 - 8026.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Hassett, M. E. Hughes, J. C. Niland, S. B. Edge, R. L. Theriault, Y.-N. Wong, J. Wilson, W. B. Carter, D. W. Blayney, and J. C. Weeks
Chemotherapy Use for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
December 1, 2008;
26(34):
5553 - 5560.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Sturgeon, M. J. Duffy, U.-H. Stenman, H. Lilja, N. Brunner, D. W. Chan, R. Babaian, R. C. Bast Jr., B. Dowell, F. J. Esteva, et al.
National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for Use of Tumor Markers in Testicular, Prostate, Colorectal, Breast, and Ovarian Cancers
Clin. Chem.,
December 1, 2008;
54(12):
e11 - e79.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Somlo, P. Chu, P. Frankel, W. Ye, S. Groshen, J. H. Doroshow, K. Danenberg, and P. Danenberg
Molecular profiling including epidermal growth factor receptor and p21 expression in high-risk breast cancer patients as indicators of outcome
Ann. Onc.,
November 1, 2008;
19(11):
1853 - 1859.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Duffy and J. Crown
A Personalized Approach to Cancer Treatment: How Biomarkers Can Help
Clin. Chem.,
November 1, 2008;
54(11):
1770 - 1779.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Allred
Commentary: Hormone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: A Distress Signal from Canada
Oncologist,
November 1, 2008;
13(11):
1134 - 1136.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. T. Ross, C.-y. Kim, G. Tang, O. L. Bohn, R. A. Beck, B. Z. Ring, R. S. Seitz, S. Paik, J. P. Costantino, and N. Wolmark
Chemosensitivity and Stratification by a Five Monoclonal Antibody Immunohistochemistry Test in the NSABP B14 and B20 Trials
Clin. Cancer Res.,
October 15, 2008;
14(20):
6602 - 6609.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R. Webster, S.-F. Lee, C. Ringland, A. L. Morey, A. M. Hanby, G. Morgan, K. Byth, P. A. Mote, P. J. Provan, I. O. Ellis, et al.
Poor-Prognosis Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Identified by Histopathologic Subclassification
Clin. Cancer Res.,
October 15, 2008;
14(20):
6625 - 6633.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Pusztai, K. Broglio, F. Andre, W. F. Symmans, K. R. Hess, and G. N. Hortobagyi
Effect of Molecular Disease Subsets on Disease-Free Survival in Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trials for Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2008;
26(28):
4679 - 4683.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Srivastava, J. W. Gray, B. J. Reid, O. Grad, A. Greenwood, E. T. Hawk, and for the Translational Research Working Group
Translational Research Working Group Developmental Pathway for Biospecimen-Based Assessment Modalities
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 15, 2008;
14(18):
5672 - 5677.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Goetz, V. J. Suman, F. J. Couch, M. M. Ames, J. M. Rae, M. G. Erlander, X.-J. Ma, D. C. Sgroi, C. A. Reynolds, W. L. Lingle, et al.
Cytochrome P450 2D6 and Homeobox 13/Interleukin-17B Receptor: Combining Inherited and Tumor Gene Markers for Prediction of Tamoxifen Resistance
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 15, 2008;
14(18):
5864 - 5868.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Goldstein, R. Gray, S. Badve, B. H. Childs, C. Yoshizawa, S. Rowley, S. Shak, F. L. Baehner, P. M. Ravdin, N. E. Davidson, et al.
Prognostic Utility of the 21-Gene Assay in Hormone Receptor-Positive Operable Breast Cancer Compared With Classical Clinicopathologic Features
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2008;
26(25):
4063 - 4071.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Paik, G. Tang, and D. Fumagalli
An Ideal Prognostic Test for Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2008;
26(25):
4058 - 4059.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. C Turner and A. L Jones
Management of breast cancer--Part II
BMJ,
July 11, 2008;
337(jul11_2):
a540 - a540.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Regan, O. Pagani, B. Walley, R. Torrisi, E. A. Perez, P. Francis, G. F. Fleming, K. N. Price, B. Thurlimann, R. Maibach, et al.
Premenopausal endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: who receives chemotherapy?
Ann. Onc.,
July 1, 2008;
19(7):
1231 - 1241.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Del Mastro
The difficult decision-making process for using or not using adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal endocrine-responsive breast cancer patients
Ann. Onc.,
July 1, 2008;
19(7):
1213 - 1215.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Andre, K. Broglio, H. Roche, M. Martin, J. R. Mackey, F. Penault-Llorca, G. N. Hortobagyi, and L. Pusztai
Estrogen Receptor Expression and Efficacy of Docetaxel-Containing Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Results From a Pooled Analysis
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 1, 2008;
26(16):
2636 - 2643.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Ross, C. Hatzis, W. F. Symmans, L. Pusztai, and G. N. Hortobagyi
Commercialized Multigene Predictors of Clinical Outcome for Breast Cancer
Oncologist,
May 1, 2008;
13(5):
477 - 493.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Cardoso, M. Saghatchian, A. Thompson, E. Rutgers, and for the TRANSBIG Consortium Steering Committee
Inconsistent Criteria Used in American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 Update of Recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 20, 2008;
26(12):
2058 - 2059.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. U. Lin and E. P. Winer
Optimizing Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Treating the Right Patients for the Right Length of Time
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 20, 2008;
26(12):
1919 - 1921.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Pusztai
Current Status of Prognostic Profiling in Breast Cancer
Oncologist,
April 1, 2008;
13(4):
350 - 360.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Chanrion, V. Negre, H. Fontaine, N. Salvetat, F. Bibeau, G. M. Grogan, L. Mauriac, D. Katsaros, F. Molina, C. Theillet, et al.
A Gene Expression Signature that Can Predict the Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated Primary Breast Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 15, 2008;
14(6):
1744 - 1752.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. D. Bear
Measuring Circulating Tumor Cells As a Surrogate End Point for Adjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer: What Do They Mean and What Should We Do About Them?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 10, 2008;
26(8):
1195 - 1197.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Marchionni, R. F. Wilson, A. C. Wolff, S. Marinopoulos, G. Parmigiani, E. B. Bass, and S. N. Goodman
Systematic Review: Gene Expression Profiling Assays in Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Ann Intern Med,
March 4, 2008;
148(5):
358 - 369.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Sparano and S. Paik
Development of the 21-Gene Assay and Its Application in Clinical Practice and Clinical Trials
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 10, 2008;
26(5):
721 - 728.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Ganz and E. E. Hahn
Implementing a Survivorship Care Plan for Patients With Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 10, 2008;
26(5):
759 - 767.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. C. Wolff, D. Berry, L. A. Carey, M. Colleoni, M. Dowsett, M. Ellis, J. E. Garber, D. Mankoff, S. Paik, L. Pusztai, et al.
Research Issues Affecting Preoperative Systemic Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 10, 2008;
26(5):
806 - 813.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Ellis
Improving Outcomes for Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Back to the Drawing Board
J Natl Cancer Inst,
February 6, 2008;
100(3):
159 - 161.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. Greene and V. Tsang
Hormonal Therapy for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients
Journal of Pharmacy Practice,
February 1, 2008;
21(1):
36 - 45.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L.-P. P. Tran and J. L. Grabinski
Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Paradigm in Flux
Journal of Pharmacy Practice,
February 1, 2008;
21(1):
46 - 56.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. K.T. Tan, L. K. Tan, K. Yu, P. H. Tan, M. Lee, L. H. Sii, C. Y. Wong, G. H. Ho, A. W.Y. Yeo, P. K.H. Chow, et al.
Clinical Validation of a Customized Multiple Signature Microarray for Breast Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
January 15, 2008;
14(2):
461 - 469.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Roukos, G. Ferretti, A. Felici, F. Cognetti, R. Mehta, I. Nash, D. F. Hayes, D. Berry, and A. Moore
HER2 and Response to Paclitaxel in Node-Positive Breast Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med.,
January 10, 2008;
358(2):
197 - 199.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Paik, Y. Taniyama, and C. E. Geyer Jr
Anthracyclines in the Treatment of HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst,
January 2, 2008;
100(1):
2 - 4.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Nordal
Prognostic Factors in Cancer, 3rd ed.
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
January 1, 2008;
190(1):
W84 - W84.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. F. Hayes
Markers for Predicting and Evaluating Response to Therapy for Breast Cancer
ASCO Educational Book,
January 1, 2008;
2008(1):
30 - 34.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. C. Ellis
Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer
ASCO Educational Book,
January 1, 2008;
2008(1):
55 - 57.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Hudis and S. Modi
Preoperative Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Miracle or Mirage?
JAMA,
December 12, 2007;
298(22):
2665 - 2667.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. E. Schnipper
Update in Oncology
Ann Intern Med,
December 4, 2007;
147(11):
775 - 782.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Harris, H. Fritsche, R. Mennel, L. Norton, P. Ravdin, S. Taube, M. R. Somerfield, D. F. Hayes, and R. C. Bast Jr
American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 Update of Recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
November 20, 2007;
25(33):
5287 - 5312.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. O'Neill, N. T. Brewer, S. E. Lillie, E. F. Morrill, E. C. Dees, L. A. Carey, and B. K. Rimer
Women's Interest in Gene Expression Analysis for Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 10, 2007;
25(29):
4628 - 4634.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Minna, L. Girard, and Y. Xie
Tumor mRNA Expression Profiles Predict Responses to Chemotherapy
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2007;
25(28):
4329 - 4336.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Marot, I. Bieche, C. Aumas, S. Esselin, C. Bouquet, S. Vacher, G. Lazennec, M. Perricaudet, F. Kuttenn, R. Lidereau, et al.
High tumoral levels of Kiss1 and G-protein-coupled receptor 54 expression are correlated with poor prognosis of estrogen receptor-positive breast tumors
Endocr. Relat. Cancer,
September 1, 2007;
14(3):
691 - 702.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. V. Abruzzo, L. L. Barron, K. Anderson, R. J. Newman, W. G. Wierda, S. O'Brien, A. Ferrajoli, M. Luthra, S. Talwalkar, R. Luthra, et al.
Identification and Validation of Biomarkers of IgVH Mutation Status in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Using Microfluidics Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Technology
J. Mol. Diagn.,
September 1, 2007;
9(4):
546 - 555.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Lonning, S Knappskog, V Staalesen, R Chrisanthar, and J. Lillehaug
Breast cancer prognostication and prediction in the postgenomic era
Ann. Onc.,
August 1, 2007;
18(8):
1293 - 1306.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. H. Lyman
Editorial: Gene Expression Profile Assays As an Aid in Treatment Decision Making in Early-Stage Breast Cancer
J. Oncol. Pract,
July 1, 2007;
3(4):
187 - 188.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. L. Henry and D. F. Hayes
Can Biology Trump Anatomy? Do All Node-Positive Patients With Breast Cancer Need Chemotherapy?
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 20, 2007;
25(18):
2501 - 2503.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cronin, C. Sangli, M.-L. Liu, M. Pho, D. Dutta, A. Nguyen, J. Jeong, J. Wu, K. C. Langone, and D. Watson
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.,
June 1, 2007;
53(6):
1084 - 1091.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Paik
Development and Clinical Utility of a 21-Gene Recurrence Score Prognostic Assay in Patients with Early Breast Cancer Treated with Tamoxifen
Oncologist,
June 1, 2007;
12(6):
631 - 635.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Di Leo
The state of HER-2 status
Ann. Onc.,
May 1, 2007;
18(5):
813 - 815.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Carey, E. C. Dees, L. Sawyer, L. Gatti, D. T. Moore, F. Collichio, D. W. Ollila, C. I. Sartor, M. L. Graham, and C. M. Perou
The Triple Negative Paradox: Primary Tumor Chemosensitivity of Breast Cancer Subtypes
Clin. Cancer Res.,
April 15, 2007;
13(8):
2329 - 2334.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Shak, G. Palmer, and J. Baker
Re: Breast Cancer Gene Microarrays Pass Muster
J Natl Cancer Inst,
April 4, 2007;
99(7):
572 - 573.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Andre, C. Hatzis, K. Anderson, C. Sotiriou, C. Mazouni, J. Mejia, B. Wang, G. N. Hortobagyi, W. F. Symmans, and L. Pusztai
Microtubule-Associated Protein-tau is a Bifunctional Predictor of Endocrine Sensitivity and Chemotherapy Resistance in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
April 1, 2007;
13(7):
2061 - 2067.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. A. Ioannidis
Is Molecular Profiling Ready for Use in Clinical Decision Making?
Oncologist,
March 1, 2007;
12(3):
301 - 311.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. D. True and X. Gao
Quantum Dots for Molecular Pathology: Their Time Has Arrived
J. Mol. Diagn.,
February 1, 2007;
9(1):
7 - 11.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Herbst and S. M. Lippman
Molecular Signatures of Lung Cancer -- Toward Personalized Therapy
N. Engl. J. Med.,
January 4, 2007;
356(1):
76 - 78.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Dowsett
Estrogen Receptor: Methodology Matters
J. Clin. Oncol.,
December 20, 2006;
24(36):
5626 - 5628.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. N. Levine and T. Whelan
Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer -- 30 Years Later
N. Engl. J. Med.,
November 2, 2006;
355(18):
1920 - 1922.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. C. Wolff and N. E. Davidson
Still Waiting After 110 Years: The Optimal Use of Ovarian Ablation As Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
November 1, 2006;
24(31):
4949 - 4951.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. Swain
A Step in the Right Direction
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 10, 2006;
24(23):
3717 - 3718.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
