Search

Choosing Wisely (CW) recommends women age ≥70 y with cT1-2cN0 ER+/HER2-invasive breast cancer (BC) should forgo routine axillary staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLN) at the time of breast surgery. Despite this longstanding recommendation, acceptance of SLN omission has not been widely adopted. Genomic assays, such as MammaPrint (MP), may supplement the decision to apply CW. We hypothesized that having MP on BC core needle biopsy (CNB) meeting CW could provide additional information to aid in decision-making about the need for axillary staging with SLN. A retrospective single-institution review was conducted for women with BC meeting CW criteria, who also had MP performed on CNB from 2020 to 2021. Categorical characteristics were compared using the chi-square test. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U -test. MP was available on CNB for 238 BC meeting CW criteria: 70% low risk and 30% high risk. Axillary staging was performed in 195 (82%). Eighty-one percent were pathologically node-negative and 19% were pathologically node-positive. The MP score did not correlate with pathologic nodal stage (P = 0.52). The rate of high nodal burden (pN2) was extremely low (n = 1, 0.5%). The only significant correlation with pathological node positivity was older age (P = 0.03). Appropriately, high-risk MP was strongly associated with increased recurrence risk (n = 4, P = 0.008). Having MP on CNB does not provide clinically meaningful information about the pN stage and does not further refine which BC patients within CW could benefit from escalation to SLN or delineate a group more likely to be pathologically node-negative. • Choosing Wisely (CW) criteria appropriately select breast cancer patients with a low burden of axillary nodal disease who benefit from de-escalation of axillary staging. • pN + breast cancer in this CW cohort had even distribution of MammaPrint scores on core needle biopsy from ultra-low risk to ultra-high risk. • MammaPrint should not be used to further refine CW guidelines to determine a group that still benefits from axillary staging because of higher nodal positivity rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Estrogen receptor-positive and progesterone receptor-negative (ER + /PR-) breast cancer comprise a special type. More than 10% breast cancer patients belonged to ER + /PR-. Methods In order to better understand this patient population, we utilized a unique dataset from China, examining the clinicopathological features and genomic profiles of ER + /PR- breast cancers. Our study involved three cohorts: Cohort 1 included 2120 unselected ER-positive female patients with re-evaluated clinicopathological and survival data; Cohort 2 comprised 442 ER-positive females who underwent genetic testing; and Cohort 3 consisted of 77 ER-positive/HER2-negative females tested with MammaPrint and BluePrint. Results Patients were stratified into four categories based on the PR/ER ratio. Clinically, ER + /PR- tumors (PR/ER ratio = 0) showed the lowest proportion of T1 tumors (10.88%) and highest proportion of HER2-positive tumors (28.36%) than did other ER + /PR + tumors groups. The ER + /PR- group contained a higher number of underweight patients (20.20%). Independently of HER2 status, ER + /PR- patients demonstrated the poorest prognosis. Genomically, the most prevalent mutations were PIK3CA (50%) in ER + /PR + tumors and TP53 (65%) in ER + /PR- tumors. ER + /PR- tumors presented more frequent mutations in TP53, ERBB2, CDK12, SPEN, and NEB, with mutation rates of 65%, 42%, 27%, 13%, and 10%, respectively. Additionally, the Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) was higher in the ER + /PR- group compared to the ER + /PR + group. The MammaPrint score for the ER + /PR-/HER2- group was significantly lower than that of other groups. In the BluePrint analysis, only four patients were classified as Basal-Type, all of whom were ER + /PR-/HER2-. Conclusions In this study, we identified the clinical and genetic characteristics of ER + /PR- breast cancer patients in China. Distinct PR statuses indicated different biological processes of ER + breast cancer and survival outcomes. Future treatment strategies may need to be tailored for ER + /PR- patients.

Background: Estrogen receptor-positive and progesterone receptor-negative (ER + /PR-) breast cancer comprise a special type. More than 10% breast cancer patients belonged to ER + /PR-. Methods: In order to better understand this patient population, we utilized a unique dataset from China, examining the clinicopathological features and genomic profiles of ER + /PR- breast cancers. Our study involved three cohorts: Cohort 1 included 2120 unselected ER-positive female patients with re-evaluated clinicopathological and survival data; Cohort 2 comprised 442 ER-positive females who underwent genetic testing; and Cohort 3 consisted of 77 ER-positive/HER2-negative females tested with MammaPrint and BluePrint. Results: Patients were stratified into four categories based on the PR/ER ratio. Clinically, ER + /PR- tumors (PR/ER ratio = 0) showed the lowest proportion of T1 tumors (10.88%) and highest proportion of HER2-positive tumors (28.36%) than did other ER + /PR + tumors groups. The ER + /PR- group contained a higher number of underweight patients (20.20%). Independently of HER2 status, ER + /PR- patients demonstrated the poorest prognosis. Genomically, the most prevalent mutations were PIK3CA (50%) in ER + /PR + tumors and TP53 (65%) in ER + /PR- tumors. ER + /PR- tumors presented more frequent mutations in TP53, ERBB2, CDK12, SPEN, and NEB, with mutation rates of 65%, 42%, 27%, 13%, and 10%, respectively. Additionally, the Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) was higher in the ER + /PR- group compared to the ER + /PR + group. The MammaPrint score for the ER + /PR-/HER2- group was significantly lower than that of other groups. In the BluePrint analysis, only four patients were classified as Basal-Type, all of whom were ER + /PR-/HER2-. Conclusions: In this study, we identified the clinical and genetic characteristics of ER + /PR- breast cancer patients in China. Distinct PR statuses indicated different biological processes of ER + breast cancer and survival outcomes. Future treatment strategies may need to be tailored for ER + /PR- patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gene expression profile has revolutionised breast cancer treatment. It has paved the way for developing cancer-specific treatment and predicting the chances of recurrence. Genomic analysis has set the benchmark for personalised cancer therapy. The gene signature tests are mainly used in hormone-positive or luminal breast carcinoma with no or low lymph nodal metastatic carcinoma, and it helps in preventing unnecessary usage of chemotherapy in low-risk groups. The low and high gene expression profiles have made inroads into the new prognostic staging of breast cancers. There are several commercially available gene signature prognostic tests such as 21-Gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX), predictor analysis of microarray 50 risk of RS, Amsterdam 70-gene Profile (MammaPrint), Breast Cancer Index and EndoPredict. The gene signature assay can be useful in stratifying hormone-positive breast cancer patients into low and high genomic risk category. The low genomic risk patients can avoid unnecessary use of chemotherapy.

Gene expression profile has revolutionised breast cancer treatment. It has paved the way for developing cancer-specific treatment and predicting the chances of recurrence. Genomic analysis has set the benchmark for personalised cancer therapy. The gene signature tests are mainly used in hormone-positive or luminal breast carcinoma with no or low lymph nodal metastatic carcinoma, and it helps in preventing unnecessary usage of chemotherapy in low-risk groups. The low and high gene expression profiles have made inroads into the new prognostic staging of breast cancers. There are several commercially available gene signature prognostic tests such as 21-Gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX), predictor analysis of microarray 50 risk of RS, Amsterdam 70-gene Profile (MammaPrint), Breast Cancer Index and EndoPredict. The gene signature assay can be useful in stratifying hormone-positive breast cancer patients into low and high genomic risk category. The low genomic risk patients can avoid unnecessary use of chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precision medicine will be the direction of future medical development, especially in cancer diagnosis and treatment. With the deepening of breast cancer-related research, new factors related to diagnosis, treatment and prognosis are constantly being discovered. Researchers combine different factors to form a multigene panel testing, guiding clinicians' decision-making. The application scope of multigene panel detection is constantly expanding. At present, it has been tried in the prognosis evaluation of lymph node-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer patients and the early screening of breast cancer. With continuous technological advancement, there will be broader application prospects in the future. The current narrative review was planned to evaluate the recent advances in applying multigene panel testing in breast cancer cases. Key Words: Multigene panel testing, Breast cancer, Oncotype Dx, MammaPrint, Endopredict, PAM50, BCI, CancerSeek.

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.

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.

Prognostic gene expression signatures can be used in combination with classical clinicopathological factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. However, long-term outcome data after introduction of genomic testing in the treatment decision-making process are limited. In the prospective RASTER study, the tumours of 427 patients with cTanyN0M0 breast cancer were tested to assess the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint). The results were provided to their treating physician to be incorporated in the decision-making on adjuvant systemic therapy. Here, we report the long-term outcome of the 310 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumours by clinical and genomic risk categories at a median follow-up of 10.3 years. Among the clinically high-risk patients, 45 (49%) were classified as genomically low risk. In this subgroup, at 10 years, distant recurrence free interval (DRFI) was similar between patients treated with (95.7% [95% CI 87.7–100]) and without (95.5% [95% CI 87.1–100]) chemotherapy. Within the group of clinically low-risk patients, 56 (26%) were classified as genomically high risk. Within the clinically low-risk group, beyond 5 years, a difference emerged between the genomically high- and low-risk subgroup resulting in a 10-year DRFI of 84.3% (95% CI 74.8–95.0) and 93.4% (95% CI 89.5–97.5), respectively. Interestingly, genomic ultralow-risk patients have a 10-year DRFI of 96.7% (95% CI 90.5–100), largely (79%) without systemic therapy. These data confirm that clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk tumours have an excellent outcome in the real-world setting of shared decision-making. Together with the updated results of the MINDACT trial, these data support the use of the MammaPrint, in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, clinically high-risk breast cancer patients. ISRCTN71917916 • Clinical high-risk, genomic low-risk tumours have similar DRFI with or without chemo. • Genomic ultralow-risk tumours have a good outcome largely without systemic therapy. • 10-year DRFI in clinical low-risk, genomic high-risk tumours suggest undertreatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Around 20 years ago, genomic profiling of breast carcinomas identified tumor subtypes with clinical implications and opened the door for a better understanding of breast cancer biology. The commercialization of multigene tests had a significant impact on clinical practice, and yet, controversy exists as to which methodology is best to inform the choice of therapy and existing recommendations are inconsistent and often driven by cost-effectiveness. Here we report data from a cohort of breast cancer patients in which pathological and molecular subtyping are directly compared in a clinical setting. The findings show that some patients with genomic low-risk tumors could receive unnecessary systemic therapy if only following the classical clinical parameters, while others could remain under-treated. This study suggests that to design precise treatment regimens for patients with early breast cancer, the conventional clinicopathological classification should be complemented with the robust prognostic information provided by molecular subtyping. Precise prognosis is crucial for selection of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer. Molecular subtyping is increasingly used to complement immunohistochemical and pathological classification and to predict recurrence. This study compares both outcomes in a clinical setting. Molecular subtyping (MammaPrint®, TargetPrint®, and BluePrint®) and pathological classification data were compared in a cohort of 143 breast cancer patients. High risk clinical factors were defined by a value of the proliferation factor Ki67 equal or higher than 14% and/or high histological grade. The results from molecular classification were considered as reference. Core needle biopsies were found to be comparable to surgery samples for molecular classification. Discrepancies were found between molecular and pathological subtyping of the samples, including misclassification of HER2-positive tumors and the identification of a significant percentage of genomic high risk T1N0 tumors. In addition, 20% of clinical low-risk tumors showed genomic high risk, while clinical high-risk samples included 42% of cases with genomic low risk. According to pathological subtyping, a considerable number of breast cancer patients would not receive the appropriate systemic therapy. Our findings support the need to determine the molecular subtype of invasive breast tumors to improve breast cancer management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: MammaPrint (MP) has been applied in South Africa (SA) for decision-making in early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer since 2006. The cost-impact of MP in SA has not been assessed. Aim: To assess different MP testing strategies for cost-minimization in early-stage breast carcinoma using a funder perspective. Methods: Clinico-pathologic information was extracted from a prospectively collected database. Clinical risk stratification was done using Adjuvant Online! (AOL) and the Predict V2.1 algorithm (www.predict.nhs.uk). An unselected MP testing strategy was compared to a selective strategy, testing only clinically high risk (cHigh) patients. Excluding human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive tumours, the costs for chemotherapy treatment and MP using funding data were used to evaluate the financial impact of these strategies. Results: In 583 patients with 601 tumours, 52% were clinically low risk (cLow) (AOL) while the average Predict 10-year survival with chemotherapy was 2.9%. MP correlated strongly with Predict and 318 (60%) patients were MP low risk. Unselective testing allowed omission of chemotherapy in 44 (8.4%) patients but escalated cost by 57.7%. Using a selective testing strategy, only 251 would be tested, de-escalating treatment in 138 (55%) and reducing cost by 19.5%. Considering a Predict value up to 3.2% as cHigh, cost would be up to 7.3% (p = 0.0467) lower with a selective testing strategy. Conclusion: MP allowed reduction in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Unselective use of MP increases overall costs. A selective testing strategy through clinical risk stratification using AOL/Predict results in substantial cost saving.

Background: Mammaprint (MP) test is a prospectively validated genomic tool for EBC patients with HR positive Her-2 negative tumors to predict risk of recurrence. We evaluated the impact of MP test on adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) decision and clinical outcome in routine clinical practice. Methods: MP test results, patient/tumor characteristics, adjuvant therapy details and relapse patterns were retrospectively collected for patients who had MP test between 2013-2023 from 24 centers. Results: Median follow up was 40 months. Among 444 patients 59% had clinical high risk (cHR) and 41% had clinical low risk (cLR) disease. Forty-four % of patients had genomic HR and 56% had genomic LR. Median age was 48, 60% were premenopausal, 4% patients were <35 years-old, 31% had NP disease, 70% had grade 2 and %63 had T1 tumors. The percentage of cHRgLR, cHRgHR, cLRgHR and cLRgLR risk patients were:31%, 28%, 16%, 25% respectively. Five- year DMFS for cLRgLR, cLRgHR, cHRgHR, cHRgLR patients were 100, 98, 93 and 96% respectively. Forty-two % received ACT, 81% received ART, 34% received OFS. Among 16 relapses, 12 were distant metastases (DM) and there wasone death due to metastatic BC. Pre-test and post-test ACT recommendations were 68% and 42% respectively. Among 263 patients cHR disease, 48% had gHR MP result. Four % of patients with cHRgLR and 91% of patients with cHRgHR disease received ACT. There were 6 and 5 DMs in cHRgHR and cHRgLR groups. Systemic therapy decision was changed from CT to endocrine therapy (ET) only in 41% of patients with cHRgLR disease. Five-year DM free survival in patients who had cHRgLR disease and who do not received ACT (n: 131) was 98%. Conclusion: Real-life outcomes with MP utilization is similar to MINDACT study outcomes; with 98% 5 year DMFS and avoidance of ACT in 41% of patients with cHRgLR disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the prospective neoadjuvant NBREaST II study, we measured the response to preoperative treatment and 5-year survival outcome in the molecular subgroups as determined by combining the MammaPrint and BluePrint. Between 2012 and 2016 we included 256 patients for whom MammaPrint and BluePrint were performed on pre-treatment core needle biopsies. The primary objective of the NBREaST II trial was to measure chemosensitivity or endocrine sensitivity in the molecular subgroups. Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were the endpoints for long-term follow-up. MammaPrint and BluePrint molecular sub-typing reclassified 9% (24/256) of tumours, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2-Type and Basal-Type, and less responsive patients to the Luminal-Type category. Patients with Luminal A-Type tumours (n = 67, 26% of the total cohort) had a poor response when treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), but had the highest 5-year DMFS outcome (91.4%; 95% CI 78.6–96.7) of all molecular subgroups. Out of the IHC/FISH defined HER2+ tumours (n = 41), 37% were not classified as HER2-Type by BluePrint. Notably, in BluePrint HER2-Type tumours, we observed a higher pCR rate, whereas the 5-year DMFS was lower compared to IHC/FISH-defined HER2+ tumours. The pCR rate and 5-year outcome for patients with Basal-Type tumours were similar to IHC/FISH-defined TN tumours. These findings suggest that MammaPrint and BluePrint can predict chemosensitivity and 5-year outcomes more accurately compared to traditional pathological sub-typing, supporting informed decision-making. • In the NBREaST II trial, 9% of tumours were reclassified by MammaPrint and BluePrint. • Molecular sub-typing (MammaPrint and BluePrint) accurately predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT). • Improved outcome based on molecular sub-typing for patients that achieve pCR. • Luminal A-Type patients had a poor response to NCT but good 5-year DMFS probability. • Genomic diversity highlights the added clinical utility of molecular sub-typing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multigene assays were developed to guide treatment in early-stage breast cancer and to evaluate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with invasive breast carcinoma, either T1 or T2, N0 or N1 (one to three positive lymph nodes), with no invaded surgical margins (R0), positive for hormone receptors and negative for Her2 receptor derive benefit from these tests. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) validated the use of the following tests: OncotypeDX (a 21 gene test), Mammaprint (70 ARN messenger genes), Predictor Analysis of Microarray 50-PAM50 (50 genes) also known as Prosigna and Endopredict (12 genes). These gene expression signatures have been increasingly used to evaluate the prognosis (such as Endopredict- that can predict outcomes more accurately than ki67 values in early-stage breast cancer) or the benefi t of adjuvant chemotherapy (such as Oncotype DX). For the moment only two assays, the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) and the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX), are supported by prospective randomized phase 3 trials. However, all multigene assays are important tools in the identification of low-risk, breast cancer patients, for whom chemotherapy could be avoided.

Background: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early-stage breast cancer (EBC) is a heterogenous disease. Identification of better clinical and molecular biomarkers is essential to guide optimal therapy for each patient., Patients and Methods: We analyzed rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) for patients with HR+/HER2-negative EBC in eight neoadjuvant arms in the I-SPY2 trial by clinical/molecular features: age, stage, histology, percentage estrogen receptor (ER) positivity, ER/progesterone receptor status, MammaPrint (MP)-High1 (0 to -0.57) versus MP-High2 (<-0.57), BluePrint (BP)-Luminal-type versus BP-Basal-type, and ImPrint immune signature. We quantified the clinical/molecular heterogeneity, assessed overlap among these biomarkers, and evaluated associations with pCR and DRFS., Results: Three hundred and seventy-nine patients with HR+/HER2-negative EBC were included in this analysis, with an observed pCR rate of 17% across treatment arms. pCR rates were higher in patients with stage II versus III disease (21% versus 9%, P = 0.0013), ductal versus lobular histology (19% versus 11%, P = 0.049), lower %ER positivity (≤66% versus >66%) (35% versus 9%, P = 3.4E-09), MP-High2 versus MP-High1 disease (31% versus 11%, P = 1.1E-05), BP-Basal-type versus BP-Luminal-type disease (34% versus 10%, P = 1.62E-07), and ImPrint-positive versus -negative disease (38% versus 10%, P = 1.64E-09). Patients with lower %ER were more likely to have MP-High2 and BP-Basal-type disease. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years, patients who achieved pCR had excellent outcomes irrespective of clinical/molecular features. Among patients who did not achieve pCR, DRFS events were more frequent in patients with MP-High2 and BP-Basal-type disease than those with MP-High1 and BP-Luminal-type disease., Conclusions: Among patients with high molecular-risk HR+/HER2-negative EBC, the MP-High2, BP-Basal-type, and ImPrint-positive signatures identified a partially overlapping subset of patients who were more likely to achieve pCR in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy ± targeted agents or immunotherapy compared to patients with MP-High1, BP-Luminal-type, and ImPrint-negative disease. I-SPY2.2 is incorporating the use of these biomarkers to molecularly define specific patient populations and optimize treatment selection., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: For hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer (EBC), adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is recommended in the case of high-risk features only. The MINDACT trial showed that patients with high clinical risk (CR) but low genomic risk (GR) defined by the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint®; 70-GS) did not benefit from ACT. In this registry, we investigated the frequency and feasibility of 70-GS and concurrent 80-gene subtyping (BluePrint®) use in HR-positive, HER2-negative EBC. Furthermore, we recorded the frequency of ACT recommendation and the adherence to it when the "MINDACT strategy" was used. Methods: This prospective registry included patients from 2 Austrian cancer centers. Similar to MINDACT, a modified version of Adjuvant!Online was used to determine CR, and 70-GC was used to determine GR in high-CR patients. ACT was recommended to patients with high CR and high GR. Results: Of 224 enrolled patients, 76 (33.9%) had high CR and 67 (88.2%) received genomic testing. Of those, 43 (64.2%) were classified as low and 24 (35.8%) as high GR, respectively. All 24 patients with high CR and GR (10.7% of all patients) received the recommendation for ACT, but ACT was started in only 15 patients (62.5%). The median time from surgery to the start of ACT was 45 days (range 32–68), and the median time from test decision to the test result was 15 days (range 9–56). Conclusion: We showed that the results of the MINDACT trial are reproducible in an Austrian population. Incorporating 70-GS into the daily clinical routine is feasible and mostly accepted by physicians for the guidance of treatment recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: MammaPrint is a 70-gene signature microarray assay that predicts the likelihood of recurrence of breast cancer and chemotherapeutic benefits. Purpose: To investigate the association between mammography and ultrasound (US) features and MammaPrint results in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive invasive breast cancer, and to identify the predictive factors for high risk of recurrence. Material and Methods: This retrospective study included 251 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, 1–3 node-positive invasive breast cancer. Mammography and US findings were reviewed according to the BI-RADS criteria. The association between MammaPrint results and the clinicopathological and imaging features was evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for high risk of recurrence. Results: Of the patients, 143 (57.0%) and 108 (43.0%) had low and high risks for recurrence on MammaPrint, respectively. Young age (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.12; P <0.001), posterior enhancement on US (OR 2.45; 95% CI 1.16–5.20; P = 0.019), absence of posterior shadowing on US (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.17–8.62; P = 0.023), high histologic grade (OR 113.36; 95% CI 6.79–1893.53; P = 0.001), and high Ki-67 level (OR 4.90; 95% CI 2.62–9.17; P <0.001) were independently associated with high risk of recurrence on multivariate logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: Posterior features in US may predict a high risk of recurrence in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive invasive breast cancer, which may be useful in enhancing the diagnostic value of MammaPrint and aid in the decision-making process regarding treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

MammaPrint (MP) has been applied in South Africa (SA) for decision-making in early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer since 2006. The cost-impact of MP in SA has not been assessed. To assess different MP testing strategies for cost-minimization in early-stage breast carcinoma using a funder perspective. Clinico-pathologic information was extracted from a prospectively collected database. Clinical risk stratification was done using Adjuvant Online! (AOL) and the Predict V2.1 algorithm (www.predict.nhs.uk). An unselected MP testing strategy was compared to a selective strategy, testing only clinically high risk (cHigh) patients. Excluding human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive tumours, the costs for chemotherapy treatment and MP using funding data were used to evaluate the financial impact of these strategies. In 583 patients with 601 tumours, 52% were clinically low risk (cLow) (AOL) while the average Predict 10-year survival with chemotherapy was 2.9%. MP correlated strongly with Predict and 318 (60%) patients were MP low risk. Unselective testing allowed omission of chemotherapy in 44 (8.4%) patients but escalated cost by 57.7%. Using a selective testing strategy, only 251 would be tested, de-escalating treatment in 138 (55%) and reducing cost by 19.5%. Considering a Predict value up to 3.2% as cHigh, cost would be up to 7.3% (p = 0.0467) lower with a selective testing strategy. MP allowed reduction in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Unselective use of MP increases overall costs. A selective testing strategy through clinical risk stratification using AOL/Predict results in substantial cost saving. • Current clinical application of MammaPrint in early breast cancer in South Africa results in the testing of a large percentage of clinically low risk patients. • When expensive assays, is used in this (unselected) manner, it results in reduced use of chemotherapy, but the total direct cost is increased. • A selective testing strategy could result in substantial cost savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the association of various gene expression assays with pathologic complete response (pCR) in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy among patients with breast cancer Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for women diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 with stage I-III breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and either 21-gene recurrence score (RS) or 70-gene signature (GS). Logistic multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed to identify variables associated with pCR. Results: A total of 3009 patients met our inclusion criteria. The median follow up was 48.0 months (interquartile range 32.2–66.7 months). On logistic MVA for all patients, those with a high risk from GS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49–8.13, p = 0.006) or with RS ≥ 31 (aOR 1.99, 95% CI 1.41–2.82, p < 0.001) were more likely to have pCR. When compared to RS ≥ 31, a high risk from GS was not associated with pCR (aOR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75–1.37, p = 0.94). However, among those with favorable hormone receptor status, similar findings were noted, except that those with a high risk group from GS were less likely to have pCR compared to those with RS ≥ 31 (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43–0.96, p = 0.03). When analyses were repeated using a high risk group from RS defined as RS ≥ 26 among those with favorable hormone receptor status, RS ≥ 26 was not associated with pCR when compared to the high risk from GS (aOR 0.74, 0.50–1.07, p = 0.12). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest study using a nationwide oncology database suggesting that high recurrence risk groups in both assays were associated with pCR. Among those with favorable hormone receptor status, RS ≥ 31 may be a more selective prognostic marker for pCR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Increased usage of genomic risk assessment assays suggests increased reliance on data provided by these assays to guide therapy decisions. The current study aimed to assess the change in treatment decision and physician confidence based on the 70-gene risk of recurrence signature (70-GS, MammaPrint) and the 80-gene molecular subtype signature (80-GS, BluePrint) in early stage breast cancer patients. Methods IMPACt, a prospective, case-only study, enrolled 452 patients between November 2015 and August 2017. The primary objective population included 358 patients with stage I-II, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The recommended treatment plan and physician confidence were captured before and after receiving results for 70-GS and 80-GS. Treatment was started after obtaining results. The distribution of 70-GS High Risk (HR) and Low Risk (LR) patients was evaluated, in addition to the distribution of 80-GS compared to IHC status. Results The 70-GS classified 62.5% (n = 224/358) of patients as LR and 37.5% (n = 134/358) as HR. Treatment decisions were changed for 24.0% (n = 86/358) of patients after receiving 70-GS and 80-GS results. Of the LR patients initially prescribed CT, 71.0% (44/62) had CT removed from their treatment recommendation. Of the HR patients not initially prescribed CT, 65.1% (41/63) had CT added. After receiving 70-GS results, CT was included in 83.6% (n = 112/134) of 70-GS HR patient treatment plans, and 91.5% (n = 205/224) of 70-GS LR patient treatment plans did not include CT. For patients who disagreed with the treatment recommended by their physicians, most (94.1%, n = 16/17) elected not to receive CT when it was recommended. For patients whose physician-recommended treatment plan was discordant with 70-GS results, discordance was significantly associated with age and lymph node status. Conclusions The IMPACt trial showed that treatment plans were 88.5% (n = 317/358) in agreement with 70-GS results, indicating that physicians make treatment decisions in clinical practice based on the 70-GS result. In clinically high risk, 70-GS Low Risk patients, there was a 60.0% reduction in treatment recommendations that include CT. Additionally, physicians reported having greater confidence in treatment decisions for their patients in 72% (n = 258/358) of cases after receiving 70-GS results. Trial registration “Measuring the Impact of MammaPrint on Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Treatment in Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Registry” (NCT02670577) retrospectively registered on Jan 27, 2016.

In recent years, developments in breast cancer have allowed yet another realization of individualized medicine in the field of oncology. One of these advances is genomic assays, which are considered elements of standard clinical practice in the management of breast cancer. These assays are widely used today not only to measure recurrence risk in breast cancer patients at an early stage but also to tailor treatment as well and minimize avoidable treatment side effects. At present, genomic tests are applied extensively in node negative disease. In this article, we review the use of these tests in node positive disease, explore their ramifications on neoadjuvant chemotherapy decisions, highlight sufficiently powered recent studies emphasizing their use and review the most recent guidelines.

IntroductionBreast cancer risk of recurrence is known to span 20 years, yet existing prognostic signatures are best at predicting early recurrences (≤ 5 years). There is a critical need to identify those patients at risk of late-relapse (>5 years), in order to select potential candidates for further treatment and to identify molecular targets for such treatment.MethodsA total of 252 breast primary tumors were selected at the Netherlands Cancer Institute from a retrospective series of ER+, HER2- breast cancer patients with a follow-up of at least 10 years. Gene expression analysis was performed using Agilent 4x44K microarrays. Patients were classified in 3 groups: no relapse (M0); relapse before 5 years (M0-5) or after 5 years (M5-15). We assessed the correlation of clinico-pathological variables with late Distant Metastases (DM). We divided the patient series into a training set of untreated patients (n = 140) and a test set of treated patients (n = 112), to investigate whether a gene-signature or single genes could be identified for predicting late DM. Pathway level late DM correlates were identified using PARADIGM and DAVID.ResultsOf the clinico-pathologic variables tested, only lymph node status associated with late DM. A 241-gene signature developed on the NKI training set was able to classify M5-15 patients in the test set with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 33% (AUC 0.654). This signature showed enrichment in genes involved in immune response and extracellular matrix. An alternative analysis of individual genes identified CH25H as an independent predictor of distant metastasis in our patient series.ConclusionsWe identified a gene signature for late metastasis in breast cancer. Our data are consistent with a model in which suppressed anti-tumoral immunity enables dormant tumor cells to re-enter the cell cycle to form metastases in response to extrinsic events in the microenvironment.

In recent years, developments in breast cancer have allowed yet another realization of individualized medicine in the field of oncology. One of these advances is genomic assays, which are considered elements of standard clinical practice in the management of breast cancer. These assays are widely used today not only to measure recurrence risk in breast cancer patients at an early stage but also to tailor treatment as well and minimize avoidable treatment side effects. At present, genomic tests are applied extensively in node negative disease. In this article, we review the use of these tests in node positive disease, explore their ramifications on neoadjuvant chemotherapy decisions, highlight sufficiently powered recent studies emphasizing their use and review the most recent guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Backgroundoverexpression of HER-2 is observed in 15-25% of breast cancers, and is associated with increased risk of recurrence. Current guidelines recommend trastuzumab and chemotherapy for most HER-2-positive patients. However, the majority of patients does not recur and might thus be overtreated with adjuvant systemic therapy. We investigated whether the 70-gene MammaPrint signature identifies HER-2-positive patients with favourable outcome.Methodsin all, 168 T1-3, N0-1, HER-2-positive patients were identified from a pooled database, classified by the 70-gene signature as good or poor prognosis, and correlated with long-term outcome. A total of 89 of these patients did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.Resultsin the group of 89 chemotherapy-naive patients, after a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 35 (39%) distant recurrences and 29 (33%) breast cancer-specific deaths occurred. The 70-gene signature classified 20 (22%) patients as good prognosis, with 10-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) of 84%, compared with 69 (78%) poor prognosis patients with 10-year DDFS of 55%. The estimated hazard ratios (HRs) were 4.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-18.7, P=0.04) and 3.8 (95% CI 0.9-15.8, P=0.07) for DDFS and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), respectively. In multivariate analysis adjusted for known prognostic factors and hormonal therapy, HRs were 5.8 (95% CI 1.3-26.7, P=0.03) and 4.7 (95% CI 1.0-21.7, P=0.05) for DDFS and BCSS, respectively.Interpretationthe 70-gene prognosis signature is an independent prognostic indicator that identifies a subgroup of HER-2-positive early breast cancer with a favourable long-term outcome.

Multigene assays were developed to guide treatment in early-stage breast cancer and to evaluate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with invasive breast carcinoma, either T1 or T2, N0 or N1 (one to three positive lymph nodes), with no invaded surgical margins (R0), positive for hormone receptors and negative for Her2 receptor derive benefit from these tests. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) validated the use of the following tests: OncotypeDX (a 21 gene test), Mammaprint (70 ARN messenger genes), Predictor Analysis of Microarray 50- PAM50 (50 genes) also known as Prosigna and Endopredict (12 genes). These gene expression signatures have been increasingly used to evaluate the prognosis (such as Endopredict- that can predict outcomes more accurately than ki67 values in early-stage breast cancer) or the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (such as Oncotype DX). For the moment only two assays, the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) and the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX), are supported by prospective randomized phase 3 trials. However, all multigene assays are important tools in the identification of low-risk, breast cancer patients, for whom chemotherapy could be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multigene assays (MGAs) guide treatment in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) enabling selective and effective use of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). Support for all MGAs had previously been derived from retrospectively-analyzed, prospective studies. Only 2 ESBC MGAs, the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint®) and the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX®), are now supported by entirely prospective randomized phase 3 trials. These studies varied in their primary objectives, design, and eligibility. The MINDACT study provided the first level 1 evidence for the 70-gene signature, identifying a prognostic capability irrespective of lymph node (LN) or hormone receptor (HR) status. However, the study did not support predictive value for the assay regarding adjuvant CT utility. The second prospective study, WSG-PlanB, confirmed the prognostic value of the 21-gene RS assay in HR-positive tumors with RS ≤ 11. A 5-year disease free survival (DFS) of 94% was identified in this group when treated with endocrine therapy (ET) alone regardless of N0 or N1 nodal status. The final new prospective study, TAILORx, confirmed the prognostic value of the 21-gene assay in N0 HR-positive disease, demonstrating a lack of CT benefit in patients with midrange RS. The information from these phase 3 studies confirms that MGAs are not interchangeable and that each provides different information for differing patient populations. Prognosis-only is supported for the 70-gene signature while both prognosis and the predictive value of CT are provided by the 21-gene assay. This review assesses and contrasts these phase 3 studies in the context of target populations and clinical utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Microarray-based clinical tests have become powerful tools in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. In contrast to traditional DNA-based tests that largely focus on single genes associated with rare conditions, microarray-based tests are ideal for the study of diseases with underlying complex genetic causes. Several microarray based tests have been translated into clinical practice such as MammaPrint and AmpliChip CYP450. Additional cancer-related microarray-based tests are either in the process of FDA review or under active development, including Tissue of Tumor Origin and AmpliChip p53. All diagnostic microarray testing is ordered by physicians and tested by a Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendment-certified (CLIA) reference laboratory. Recently, companies offering consumer based microarray testing have emerged. Individuals can order tests online and service providers deliver the results directly to the clients via a password-protected secure website. Navigenics, 23andMe and deCODE Genetics represent pioneering companies in this field. Although the progress of these microarray-based tests is extremely encouraging with the potential to revolutionize the recognition and treatment of common diseases, these tests are still in their infancy and face technical, clinical and marketing challenges. In this article, we review microarray-based tests which are currently approved or under review by the FDA, as well as the consumer-based testing. We also provide a summary of the challenges and strategic solutions in the development and clinical use of the microarray-based tests. Finally, we present a brief outlook for the future of microarray-based clinical applications.

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and patients are managed clinically based on ER, PR, HER2 expression, and key risk factors. The use of gene expression assays for early stage disease is already common practice. These tests have found a place in risk stratifying the heterogeneous group of stage I–II breast cancers for recurrence, for predicting chemotherapy response, and for predicting breast cancer-related mortality. Most guidelines for hormone receptor (HR)–positive early breast cancer recommend addition of adjuvant chemotherapy for most women, leading to overtreatment, which causes considerable morbidity and cost. Expert oncologist discussed about strategies of gene expression assays and aid in chemotherapy recommendations for treatment of HR + ve EBC and the expert group used data from published literature, practical experience and opinion of a large group of academic oncologists to arrive at this practical consensus recommendations for the benefit of community oncologists.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is routinely used to approximate breast cancer intrinsic subtypes, which were initially discovered by microarray analysis. However, IHC assessment of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status, is a poor surrogate of molecular subtype. Therefore, MammaPrint/BluePrint (MP/BP) microarray gene expression profiling is increasingly used to stratify breast cancer patients into different treatment groups. In this study, ER/PR status, as reported by standard IHC and single-gene mRNA analysis using TargetPrint, was compared with molecular subtyping to evaluate the combined use of MP/BP in South African breast cancer patients. Pathological information of 74 ER/PR positive, HER2 negative tumours from 73 patients who underwent microarray testing, were extracted from a central breast cancer genomics database. The IHC level was standardised by multiplying the intensity score (0–3) by the reported proportion of positively stained nuclei, giving a score of 0–300. Comparison between mRNA levels and IHC determination of ER/PR status demonstrated a significant correlation (p

Background: Increased usage of genomic risk assessment assays suggests increased reliance on data provided by these assays to guide therapy decisions. The current study aimed to assess the change in treatment decision and physician confidence based on the 70-gene risk of recurrence signature (70-GS, MammaPrint) and the 80-gene molecular subtype signature (80-GS, BluePrint) in early stage breast cancer patients.Methods: IMPACt, a prospective, case-only study, enrolled 452 patients between November 2015 and August 2017. The primary objective population included 358 patients with stage I-II, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The recommended treatment plan and physician confidence were captured before and after receiving results for 70-GS and 80-GS. Treatment was started after obtaining results. The distribution of 70-GS High Risk (HR) and Low Risk (LR) patients was evaluated, in addition to the distribution of 80-GS compared to IHC status.Results: The 70-GS classified 62.5% (n = 224/358) of patients as LR and 37.5% (n = 134/358) as HR. Treatment decisions were changed for 24.0% (n = 86/358) of patients after receiving 70-GS and 80-GS results. Of the LR patients initially prescribed CT, 71.0% (44/62) had CT removed from their treatment recommendation. Of the HR patients not initially prescribed CT, 65.1% (41/63) had CT added. After receiving 70-GS results, CT was included in 83.6% (n = 112/134) of 70-GS HR patient treatment plans, and 91.5% (n = 205/224) of 70-GS LR patient treatment plans did not include CT. For patients who disagreed with the treatment recommended by their physicians, most (94.1%, n = 16/17) elected not to receive CT when it was recommended. For patients whose physician-recommended treatment plan was discordant with 70-GS results, discordance was significantly associated with age and lymph node status.Conclusions: The IMPACt trial showed that treatment plans were 88.5% (n = 317/358) in agreement with 70-GS results, indicating that physicians make treatment decisions in clinical practice based on the 70-GS result. In clinically high risk, 70-GS Low Risk patients, there was a 60.0% reduction in treatment recommendations that include CT. Additionally, physicians reported having greater confidence in treatment decisions for their patients in 72% (n = 258/358) of cases after receiving 70-GS results.Trial Registration: "Measuring the Impact of MammaPrint on Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Treatment in Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Registry" (NCT02670577) retrospectively registered on Jan 27, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The WSG-PRIMe Study prospectively evaluated the impact of the 70-gene signature MammaPrint® (MP) and the 80-gene molecular subtyping assay BluePrint® on clinical therapy decisions in luminal early breast cancer. Methods: 452 hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative patients were recruited (N0, N1). Physicians provided initial therapy recommendations based on clinicopathological factors. After prospective risk classification by MammaPrint/BluePrint was revealed, post-test treatment recommendations and actual treatment were recorded. Decisional Conflict and anxiety were measured by questionnaires. Results: Post-test switch (in chemotherapy (CT) recommendation) occurred in 29.1% of cases. Overall, physician adherence to MP risk assessment was 92.3% for low-risk and 94.3% for high-risk MP scores. Adherence was remarkably high in "discordant" groups: 74.7% of physicians initially recommending CT switched to CT omission following low-risk MP scores; conversely, 88.9% of physicians initially recommending CT omission switched to CT recommendations following high-risk MP scores. Most patients (99.2%) recommended to forgo CT post-test and 21.3% of patients with post-test CT recommendations did not undergo CT; among MP low-risk patients with pre-test and post-test CT recommendations, 40% did not actually undergo CT. Luminal subtype assessment by BluePrint was discordant with IHC assessment in 34% of patients. Patients' State Anxiety scores improved significantly overall, particularly in MP low-risk patients. Trait Anxiety scores increased slightly in MP high risk and decreased slightly in MP low-risk patients. Conclusions: MammaPrint and BluePrint test results strongly impacted physicians' therapy decisions in luminal EBC with up to three involved lymph nodes. The high adherence to genetically determined risk assessment represents a key prerequisite for achieving a personalized cost-effective approach to disease management of early breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this Annual Review Issue of The Journal of Pathology, we present 15 invited reviews on topical aspects of pathology, ranging from the impacts of the microbiome in human disease through mechanisms of cell death and autophagy to recent advances in immunity and the uses of genomics for understanding, classifying and treating human cancers. Each of the reviews is authored by experts in their fields and our intention is to provide comprehensive updates in specific areas of pathology in which there has been considerable recent progress. Copyright © 2019 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last decade, the genomics revolution has driven critical advances in molecular oncology and pathology, and a deeper appreciation of heterogeneity that is beginning to reshape our thinking around diagnostic classification. Recent developments have seen existing classification systems modified and improved where possible, gene‐based diagnostics implemented and tumour–immune interactions modulated. We present a detailed discussion of this progress, including advances in the understanding of breast tumour classification, e.g. mixed ductal–lobular tumours and the spectrum of triple‐negative breast cancer. The latest information on clinical trials and the implementation of gene‐based diagnostics, including MammaPrint and Oncotype Dx and others, is synthesised, and emerging targeted therapies, as well as the burgeoning immuno‐oncology field, and their relevance in breast cancer, are discussed. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is routinely used to approximate breast cancer intrinsic subtypes, which were initially discovered by microarray analysis. However, IHC assessment of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status, is a poor surrogate of molecular subtype. Therefore, MammaPrint/BluePrint (MP/BP) microarray gene expression profiling is increasingly used to stratify breast cancer patients into different treatment groups. In this study, ER/PR status, as reported by standard IHC and single-gene mRNA analysis using TargetPrint, was compared with molecular subtyping to evaluate the combined use of MP/BP in South African breast cancer patients. Pathological information of 74 ER/PR positive, HER2 negative tumours from 73 patients who underwent microarray testing, were extracted from a central breast cancer genomics database. The IHC level was standardised by multiplying the intensity score (0-3) by the reported proportion of positively stained nuclei, giving a score of 0-300. Comparison between mRNA levels and IHC determination of ER/PR status demonstrated a significant correlation (p<0.001) for both receptors (ER: 0.34 and PR: 0.54). Concordance was shown in 61 (82%) cases and discordance in 13 (18%) of the 74 tumours tested. Further stratification by MP/BP identified 49 (66.2%) Luminal A, 21 (28.4%) Luminal B and 4 (5.4%) Basal-like tumours. Neither IHC nor TargetPrint could substitute BP subtyping, which measures the functional integrity of ER and can identify patients with false-positive tumours who are resistant to hormone therapy. These findings support the implementation of a pathology-supported genetic testing approach combining IHC and microarray gene profiling for definitive prognostic and predictive treatment decision-making in patients with early stage breast cancer. Significance: * Single-gene genomic oestrogen and progesterone receptor reporting adds limited additional information to the molecular stratification of breast cancer tumours and does not supersede the immunohistochemistry results. * Neither single-gene genomic mRNA nor immunohistochemistry reporting of oestrogen and progesterone receptor status can replace the combined use of MammaPrint/BluePrint genomic molecular subtyping. * Reliable distinction between Luminal A and B type tumours is not possible using immunohistochemistry or single-gene genomic mRNA assessment of oestrogen/progesterone and HER2 receptor status. * Combining immunohistochemistry and microarray gene profiling enables the identification of endocrine treatment resistant hormone-positive tumours lacking ERα function (Basal-like), despite positive expression at the protein and single-gene RNA level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The gene expression test (GET) was used to predict the response to chemotherapy and the recurrence risk. Several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that some patients with node-positive disease can achieve favorable survival outcomes even without adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aimed to predict the results of Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) and MammaPrint (Agendia) using traditional clinicopathological factors., Methods: We reviewed the records of 311 patients who underwent GET for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative primary invasive breast cancer with node-positive disease between 2015 and 2022 at Severance Hospital and Gangneung Asan Medical Center. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses assessed the relationships between clinicopathological variables and risk stratification using the GET results., Results: A simple scoring system was created by assigning integer values to each variable. A score of 3 was assigned for histological grade 3, a score of 2 for pathologic T2 or above, and a score of 1 for a lower progesterone receptor (1-20 or Alled score 3-6), HER2 2-positive, and high Ki-67 (>20). In the validation cohort, overall accuracy was 0.798 (95% confidence interval, 0.744-0.844)., Conclusion: The high GET risk results can be predicted using traditional clinicopathological factors: tumor size, progesterone receptor, histological grade, HER2, and Ki-67. These results will be useful for treatment decision-making among clinically high-risk patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative and node-positive disease, helping to identify patients to whom the GET assay may not apply., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2023, the Korean Surgical Society.)

MammaPrint was the first genomic assay in breast cancer to be validated with a prospective randomized trial, the MINDACT trial. The 70 gene MammaPrint assay was developed to determine the risk of distant metastasis in early stage breast cancer through gene expression analysis and was the first FDA cleared genomic assay for breast cancer. The assay identifies primary breast cancers likely to metastasize within the first five years of diagnosis and has clinical utility for helping to determine the expected benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. The MINDACT Trial was the first trial of a genomic assay in breast cancer to provide prospective, randomized evidence of clinical utility for this important clinical question, identifying a significant proportion of patients who could safely forgo chemotherapy within a cohort of patients with high risk clinical characteristics. Nearly half of all patients (46%) who would have been advised chemotherapy according to clinical guidelines were identified genomically by MammaPrint as being low risk and found to have equivalent rates of freedom from metastasis at 5 years with or without chemotherapy. Based upon the MINDACT trial, the ASCO Biomarker Guidelines now approve the use of MammaPrint to inform decisions regarding chemotherapy for women with clinically high-risk ER+ breast cancer, and as the only approved assay for use in women with 1-3 involved lymph nodes. Recent studies suggest information obtained from the 70-gene assay may also help inform decisions regarding endocrine therapy, as well as chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Conclusion. The power of gene expression analysis in breast cancer, effectively illustrated with MammaPrint in the MINDACT trial, is now being explored through examination of the full transcriptome in breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]