Immunohistochemical versus molecular (BluePrint and MammaPrint) subtyping of breast carcinoma. Outcome results from the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial.

PURPOSE: This study compares immunohistochemical (IHC) versus molecular subtyping (BluePrint and MammaPrint) in the population of patients enrolled in MINDACT and outcome based on molecular subtyping (MS) versus surrogate pathological subtyping (PS) as defined by the 2013 St. Gallen guidelines. METHODS: MS classified patients in the following subtypes: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER-2-, and Basal-type. IHC/FISH for pathological subtyping (ER, PgR, HER-2, and Ki67) was centrally assessed in the European Institute of Oncology (n = 5806). Hazard ratios for distant-metastasis-free survival (DMFS) by subtype were adjusted for chemotherapy and endocrine therapy administration and thus independent of adjuvant treatment allocation. RESULTS: PS Luminal cancers classified as HER-2+ or Basal-type by MS did not have a significantly lower DMFS than the Luminal-type cancers by MS (95.9%): HR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.75-2.60 (p = 0.294). More patients were identified with Luminal A disease by MS (63%) as compared with PS (47%) with comparable 5-year DMFS (≥96.0%). Among the 500 patients with PS TN cancers, MS identified 24 (5%) patients as Luminal-type with 5-year DMFS estimated at 100% versus 71.4% for MS HER-2+ or 90.1% for MS Basal-type. CONCLUSIONS: MS was able to re-stratify 54% of patients with a Luminal-B PS subtype to a low-risk Luminal A-type group with comparable outcome. Among TN EBC, 5% were classified as Luminal by MS with Luminal-like outcome. Molecular classification can help to identify a larger group of patients with low risk of recurrence compared with the more contemporarily used classification methodology including high-quality assessed Ki67.

Gene expression profiling to predict the risk of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer: a pooled analysis.

The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) has been developed to predict the risk of distant metastases in breast cancer and select those patients who may benefit from adjuvant treatment. Given the strong association between locoregional and distant recurrence, we hypothesize that the 70-gene signature will also be able to predict the risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR). 1,053 breast cancer patients primarily treated with breast-conserving treatment or mastectomy at the Netherlands Cancer Institute between 1984 and 2006 were included. Adjuvant treatment consisted of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or endocrine therapy as indicated by guidelines used at the time. All patients were included in various 70-gene signature validation studies. After a median follow-up of 8.96 years with 87 LRRs, patients with a high-risk 70-gene signature (n = 492) had an LRR risk of 12.6% (95% CI 9.7-15.8) at 10 years, compared to 6.1% (95% CI 4.1-8.5) for low-risk patients (n = 561; P < 0.001). Adjusting the 70-gene signature in a competing risk model for the clinicopathological factors such as age, tumour size, grade, hormone receptor status, LVI, axillary lymph node involvement, surgical treatment, endocrine treatment, and chemotherapy resulted in a multivariable HR of 1.73 (95% CI 1.02-2.93; P = 0.042). Adding the signature to the model based on clinicopathological factors improved the discrimination, albeit non-significantly [C-index through 10 years changed from 0.731 (95% CI 0.682-0.782) to 0.741 (95% CI 0.693-0.790)]. Calibration of the prognostic models was excellent. The 70-gene signature is an independent prognostic factor for LRR. A significantly lower local recurrence risk was seen in patients with a low-risk 70-gene signature compared to those with high-risk 70-gene signature.

High concordance of protein (by IHC), gene (by FISH; HER2 only), and microarray readout (by TargetPrint) of ER, PgR, and HER2: results from the EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the correlation of TargetPrint with local and central immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of estrogen (ER), progesterone (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in the first 800 patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from local (N = 800) and central (N = 626) assessments of receptor status were collected and compared with TargetPrint results. RESULTS: For ER, the positive agreement (the percentage of central pathology positive assessments that were also TargetPrint/local laboratory positive) for TargetPrint in comparison to centralized assessment was 98% with a negative agreement (the percentage of central pathology negative assessments that were also TargetPrint/local laboratory negative) of 96%. For PgR, the positive agreement was 83% with a negative agreement of 92%. For HER2, the positive agreement was 75% with a negative agreement of 99%. Even though the local assessment showed higher positive agreement for PgR (89%) and higher positive agreement for HER2 (85%), the range of discordant local versus central assessments were as high as 6.7% for ER, 12.9% for PgR, and 4.3% for HER2. CONCLUSION: TargetPrint and local assessment of ER, PgR, and HER2 show high concordance with central assessment in the first 800 MINDACT patients. However, there are concerns about the higher discordance rates for some local sites. TargetPrint can improve the reliability of hormone receptor and HER2 testing for those centers with a lower rate of concordance with the reference laboratory, with the limitation of a positive agreement of 75% for HER2. TargetPrint consequently has important implications for treatment decisions in clinical practice and is a reliable alternative to local assessment for ER. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00433589.

Hereditary melanoma and predictive genetic testing: why not?

BACKGROUND: Since p16-Leiden presymptomatic testing for hereditary melanoma has become available in the Netherlands, the benefits and risks of offering such testing are evaluated. The current paper investigated why the non-participants were reluctant to participate in genetic testing. METHODS: Sixty six eligible individuals, who were knowledgeable about the test but had not participated in genetic testing by January 2003, completed a self-report questionnaire assessing motivation, anxiety, family dynamics, risk knowledge and causal attributions. RESULTS: Non-participants reported anxiety levels below clinical significance. A principal components analysis on reasons for non-participation distinguished two underlying motives: emotional and rational motivation. Rational motivation for non-participation was associated with more accurate risk knowledge, the inclination to preselect mutation carriers within the family and lower scores on anxiety. Emotional motivation for non-participation was associated with disease misperceptions, hesitation to communicate unfavourable test results within the family and higher scores on anxiety. CONCLUSION: Rational and emotional motivation for non-participation in the genetic test for hereditary melanoma was found. Emotionally motivated individuals may be reluctant to disseminate genetic risk information. Rationally motivated individuals were better informed than emotionally motivated individuals. It is suggested that a leaflet is added to the invitation letter to enhance informed decision-making about genetic testing.