Association of 70-Gene Signature Assay Findings With Physicians' Treatment Guidance for Patients With Early Breast Cancer Classified as Intermediate Risk by the 21-Gene Assay.

IMPORTANCE: Among patients who undergo the 21-gene assay (21-GA), 39% to 67% receive an intermediate risk result and may receive ambiguous treatment guidance. The 70-gene signature assay (70-GS) may be associated with physicians' treatment decisions in this population with early breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 70-GS findings are associated with physicians' decisions about adjuvant treatment and confidence in their recommendations and to evaluate the dichotomous (high- vs low-risk) and continuous distribution of 70-GS indices among this group of patients with intermediate risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Prospective Study of MammaPrint in Breast Cancer Patients With an Intermediate Recurrence Score (PROMIS trial) was an impact study conducted from May 20, 2012, through December 31, 2015, that enrolled 840 patients with early-stage breast cancer and a 21-gene assay recurrence score of 18 to 30. Patients were treated in 58 US institutions. INTERVENTIONS: The 70-GS result was given to physicians before adjuvant treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in physician treatment decision before vs after receiving the 70-GS result. With a treatment change of greater than 20%, the odds ratio (OR) was applied. RESULTS: Among the 840 patients who underwent 70-GS classification (mean age, 59 years; range, 27-93 years), 374 (44.5%) had a low-risk and 466 (55.5%) had a high-risk result. The distribution of 70-GS indices did not correlate with recurrence score within the 21-GA intermediate range, with 70-GS low- and high-risk patients observed at every recurrence score. A significant change in adjuvant treatment was associated with receiving the 70-GS classifications with an OR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; McNemar test, P < .001) for all patients. Among the low-risk patients, 108 of 374 (28.9%) had chemotherapy removed from their treatment recommendation; among the high-risk patients, 171 of 466 (36.7%) had chemotherapy added. Results of the 70-GS were associated with the physician's adjuvant treatment recommendation; 409 high-risk patients (87.8%) were recommended to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and 339 low-risk patients (90.6%) were recommended no chemotherapy. Physicians reported having greater confidence in their treatment recommendation in 660 cases (78.6%) based on 70-GS results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The 70-GS provides clinically actionable information regarding patients classified as intermediate risk by the 21-GA and was associated with a change in treatment decision in 282 of these patients (33.6%). Chemotherapy was added or withheld by the treating physician based on the results of the 70-GS test. Physicians reported more confidence with their treatment recommendation after receiving 70-GS results.

Using the 21-gene assay from core needle biopsies to choose neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: A multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the Oncotype Dx® 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) could guide neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) to facilitate breast conserving surgery (BCS) for hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancers. METHODS: This study enrolled patients with HR+, HER2-negative, invasive breast cancers not suitable for BCS (size ≥ 2 cm). Core needle biopsy blocks were tested. For tumors with RS < 11, patients received hormonal therapy (NHT); patients with RS > 25 tumors received chemotherapy (NCT); patients with RS 11-25 were randomized to NHT or NCT. Primary endpoint was whether 1/3 or more of randomized patients refused assigned treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled. Of 33 patients with RS 11-25, 5 (15%) refused assignment to NCT. This was significantly lower than the 33% target (binomial test, P = 0.0292). Results for clinical outcomes (according to treatment received for 55 subjects) included successful BCS for 75% of tumors with RS < 11 receiving NHT, 72% for RS 11-25 receiving NHT, 64% for RS 11-25 receiving NCT, and 57% for RS > 25 receiving NCT. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RS to guide NST is feasible. These results suggest that for patients with RS < 25 NHT is a potentially effective strategy.

Profiling of 149 Salivary Duct Carcinomas, Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenomas, and Adenocarcinomas, Not Otherwise Specified Reveals Actionable Genomic Alterations.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify genomic alterations (GA) in salivary gland adenocarcinomas, not otherwise specified (NOS), salivary duct carcinomas (SDC), carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (ca ex PA), and salivary carcinoma, NOS. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DNA was extracted from 149 tumors. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed on hybridization-captured adaptor ligation-based libraries of 182 or 315 cancer-related genes plus introns from 14 or 28 genes frequently rearranged for cancer and evaluated for all classes of GAs. RESULTS: A total of 590 GAs were found in 157 unique genes (mean 3.9/tumor). GAs in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway were more common in SDC (53.6%) than other histologies (P = 0.019) Cyclin-dependent kinase GAs varied among all histotypes: adenocarcinoma, NOS (34.6%); SDC (12.2%); ca ex PA (16.7%); carcinoma, NOS (31.2%; P = 0.043). RAS GAs were observed: adenocarcinoma, NOS (17.3%); SDC (26.8%); ca ex PA (4.2%); and carcinoma, NOS (9.4%; P = 0.054). ERBB2 GAs, including amplifications and mutations, were common: adenocarcinoma, NOS (13.5%); SDC (26.8%); ca ex PA (29.2%); carcinoma, NOS (18.8; P = 0.249). Other notable GAs include TP53 in >45% of each histotype; NOTCH1: adenocarcinoma, NOS (7.7%), ca ex PA (8.3%), carcinoma, NOS (21.6%); NF1: adenocarcinoma, NOS (9.6%), SDC (17.1%), carcinoma, NOS (18.8%). RET fusions were identified in one adenocarcinoma, NOS (CCDC6-RET) and two SDCs (NCOA4-RET). Clinical responses were observed in patients treated with anti-HER2 and anti-RET-targeted therapies. CONCLUSIONS: CGP of salivary adenocarcinoma, NOS, SDCs, ca ex PA, and carcinoma, NOS revealed diverse GAs that may lead to novel treatment options. Clin Cancer Res; 22(24); 6061-8. ©2016 AACR.