Search

Context and Aims: Breast cancer prognosis and predictive biomarkers development would allow sparing some patients from chemotherapy or identifying patients for whom chemotherapy would be indicated. In this context, in 2009, the French National Cancer Institute, a National Health and Science Agency dedicated to cancer, in collaboration with the French society of senology and breast pathology (SFSPM) published a report on the assessment of the prognostic and the predictive clinical validity of tissular biomarkers, uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), in breast cancer management. They concluded that only the uPA/PAI-1 prognosis value reached the highest level of evidence (LOE I according to Hayes 1998 classification). In 2012, it was decided to update this report since new data have emerged and because information disparities among clinicians have been identified. This article aims to present the main conclusions together with the levels of evidence associated with those conclusions., Methods: The updating process was based on literature published since 2009 appraisal and on multidisciplinary and independent experts' opinion. The levels of evidence (LOE) used are those of the classification defined by Simon in 2009 (updated Hayes 1998 classification): LOE IA and LOE IB: high level of evidence; LOE IIB and LOE IIC: intermediate level of evidence; LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD: low level of evidence., Conclusions: Among patients without lymph-node involvement, uPA/PAI-1, invasion process biomarkers, reach the highest level of evidence for 10 years recurrence free survival prognosis (LOE IA according to Simon). The predictive value to anthracyclins chemotherapy remains to be confirmed. Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®) prognosis and predictive value do not reach the LOE I level. This updating' process confirms the 2009 levels of evidence for all the three biomarkers prognosis value. Besides, concerning Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), new data do not allow to conclude neither to their complementary clinical information to other clinicopathological existing biomarkers nor to a favorable cost-efficiency ratio in therapeutic decision making and this because of the methodological weakness and uncertainty that are identified in the selected studies. Practically, beyond the prognosis and predictive biomarkers validity, the clinical utility of a new biomarker for chemotherapy indication depends on its clinical added information with regard to validated biomarkers (HR, HER2 and Ki67) and to clinicopathological parameters. Since they are the sole validated biomarkers of the invasion process, uPA/PAI-1 could complete clinical information of other clinicopathological factors and consequently could confer an added clinical value. However, data concerning the impact of this information on chemotherapy clinical indication are lacking., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)