4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Association Between 21-Gene Assay Recurrence Score and Locoregional Recurrence Rates in Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cohort study examines the association between recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in postmenopausal women who received treatment for node-positive, estrogen receptor– or progesterone receptor–positive breast cancer. Does an association exist between the 21-gene expression assay recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in postmenopausal women with a node-positive, estrogen receptor– or progesterone receptor–positive breast cancer treated with either adjuvant chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen or tamoxifen alone? In this cohort study of 316 women with breast cancer who were participants in the Southwest Oncology Group S8814 randomized clinical trial, an intermediate or high recurrence score was associated with a significantly increased risk of locoregional recurrence; the same results were found in a subset of this cohort who underwent a mastectomy without radiotherapy. These findings suggest that the recurrence score may provide valuable prognostic information on locoregional recurrence that may aid in decision-making about radiotherapy for postmenopausal women with breast cancer. The 21-gene assay recurrence score is increasingly used to personalize treatment recommendations for systemic therapy in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)– or progesterone receptor (PR)–positive, node-positive breast cancer; however, the relevance of the 21-gene assay to radiotherapy decisions remains uncertain. To examine the association between recurrence score and locoregional recurrence (LRR) in a postmenopausal patient population treated with adjuvant chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen or tamoxifen alone. This cohort study was a retrospective analysis of the Southwest Oncology Group S8814, a phase 3 randomized clinical trial of postmenopausal women with ER/PR-positive, node-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen alone, chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen, or concurrent tamoxifen and chemotherapy. Patients at North American clinical centers were enrolled from June 1989 to July 1995. Medical records from patients with recurrence score information were reviewed for LRR and radiotherapy use. Primary analysis included 316 patients and excluded 37 who received both mastectomy and radiotherapy, 9 who received breast-conserving surgery without documented radiotherapy, and 5 with unknown surgical type. All analyses were performed from January 22, 2016, to August 9, 2019. The LRR was defined as a recurrence in the breast; chest wall; or axillary, infraclavicular, supraclavicular, or internal mammary lymph nodes. Time to LRR was tested with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression for multivariate models. The final cohort of this study comprised 316 women with a mean (range) age of 60.4 (44-81) years. Median (interquartile range) follow-up for those without LRR was 8.7 (7.0-10.2) years. Seven LRR events (5.8%) among 121 patients with low recurrence score and 27 LRR events (13.8%) among 195 patients with intermediate or high recurrence score occurred. The estimated 10-year cumulative incidence rates were 9.7% for those with a low recurrence score and 16.5% for the group with intermediate or high recurrence score ( P  = .02). Among patients who had a mastectomy without radiotherapy (n = 252), the differences in the 10-year actuarial LRR rates remained significant: 7.7 % for the low recurrence score group vs 16.8% for the intermediate or high recurrence score group ( P  = .03). A multivariable model controlling for randomized treatment, number of positive nodes, and surgical type showed that a higher recurrence score was prognostic for LRR (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36; 95% CI, 1.02-5.45; P  = .04). In a subset analysis of patients with a mastectomy and 1 to 3 involved nodes who did not receive radiation therapy, the group with a low recurrence score had a 1.5% rate of LRR, whereas the group with an intermediate or high recurrence score had a 11.1% LRR ( P  = .051). This study found that higher recurrence scores were associated with increased LRR after adjustment for treatment, type of surgical procedure, and number of positive nodes. This finding suggests that the recurrence score may be used, along with accepted clinical variables, to assess the risk of LRR during radiotherapy decision-making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial.

          The 21-gene recurrence score assay is prognostic for women with node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. A low recurrence score predicts little benefit of chemotherapy. For node-positive breast cancer, we investigated whether the recurrence score was prognostic in women treated with tamoxifen alone and whether it identified those who might not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, despite higher risks of recurrence. The phase 3 trial SWOG-8814 for postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer showed that chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) before tamoxifen (CAF-T) added survival benefit to treatment with tamoxifen alone. Optional tumour banking yielded specimens for determination of recurrence score by RT-PCR. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the effect of recurrence score on disease-free survival by treatment group (tamoxifen vs CAF-T) using Cox regression, adjusting for number of positive nodes. There were 367 specimens (40% of the 927 patients in the tamoxifen and CAF-T groups) with sufficient RNA for analysis (tamoxifen, n=148; CAF-T, n=219). The recurrence score was prognostic in the tamoxifen-alone group (p=0.006; hazard ratio [HR] 2.64, 95% CI 1.33-5.27, for a 50-point difference in recurrence score). There was no benefit of CAF in patients with a low recurrence score (score or =31; log-rank p=0.033; HR 0.59, 0.35-1.01), after adjustment for number of positive nodes. The recurrence score by treatment interaction was significant in the first 5 years (p=0.029), with no additional prediction beyond 5 years (p=0.58), although the cumulative benefit remained at 10 years. Results were similar for overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival. The recurrence score is prognostic for tamoxifen-treated patients with positive nodes and predicts significant benefit of CAF in tumours with a high recurrence score. A low recurrence score identifies women who might not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, despite positive nodes. National Cancer Institute and Genomic Health. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study.

              PURPOSE To determine whether the Recurrence Score (RS) provided independent information on risk of distant recurrence (DR) in the tamoxifen and anastrozole arms of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS RNA was extracted from 1,372 tumor blocks from postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer in the monotherapy arms of ATAC. Twenty-one genes were assessed by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and the RS was calculated. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the value of adding RS to a model with clinical variables (age, tumor size, grade, and treatment) in node-negative (N0) and node-positive (N+) women. RESULTS Reportable scores were available from 1,231 evaluable patients (N0, n = 872; N+, n = 306; and node status unknown, n = 53); 72, 74, and six DRs occurred in N0, N+, and node status unknown patients, respectively. For both N0 and N+ patients, RS was significantly associated with time to DR in multivariate analyses (P or = 31) groups were 4%, 12%, and 25%, respectively, in N0 patients and 17%, 28%, and 49%, respectively, in N+ patients. The prognostic value of RS was similar in anastrozole- and tamoxifen-treated patients. CONCLUSION This study confirmed the performance of RS in postmenopausal HR+ patients treated with tamoxifen in a large contemporary population and demonstrated that RS is an independent predictor of DR in N0 and N+ hormone receptor-positive patients treated with anastrozole, adding value to estimates with standard clinicopathologic features.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Oncology
                JAMA Oncol
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2374-2437
                January 09 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
                [2 ]Cancer Research and Biostatics, Seattle, Washington
                [3 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [4 ]Department of Pathology, Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, California
                [5 ]Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco
                [6 ]Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [7 ]Division of Medical Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [8 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
                [9 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [10 ]Department of Surgery, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
                [11 ]Department of Medicine, Cancer Therapy & Research Center, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio
                [12 ]Department of Medicine, Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
                [13 ]Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
                [14 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Arizona, Tucson
                [15 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle
                [16 ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [17 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
                Article
                10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5559
                6990911
                31917424
                dd5ff2f8-0fdc-40db-840f-1b007e8515ff
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article