European inter-institutional impact study of MammaPrint.

[en] AIM: To measure the impact of MammaPrint on adjuvant treatment decisions and to analyze the agreement in treatment decisions between hospitals from 4 European countries for the same patient cohort. METHODS: Breast cancer patients were prospectively enrolled and MammaPrint was assessed. Patients' clinical data without and then with MammaPrint results were sent to the different multidisciplinary teams and treatment advice was provided for each patient. RESULTS: Using MammaPrint, chemotherapy treatment advice for ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients was changed in 37% of patients by the Dutch, 24% by the Belgian, 28% by the Italian and 35% by the Spanish teams. MammaPrint increased the inter-institutional agreement in treatment advice (chemotherapy or no chemotherapy) from 51% to 75%. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that MammaPrint impacts adjuvant chemotherapy recommendation. MammaPrint can decrease inter-institutional and inter-country variability in adjuvant treatment advice for breast cancer patients.

Disciplines :

Oncology

Author, co-author :

Cusumano, P. G.

Generali, D.

Ciruelos, E.

Manso, L.

Ghanem, I.

LIFRANGE, Eric

Jerusalem, Guy ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Oncologie

Klaase, J.

de Snoo, F.

Stork-Sloots, L.

Dekker-Vroling, L.

Lutke Holzik, M.

Language :

English

Title :

European inter-institutional impact study of MammaPrint.

Publication date :

2014

Journal title :

Breast

ISSN :

0960-9776

eISSN :

1532-3080

Publisher :

Churchill Livingstone, United States

Volume :

Issue :

Pages :

423-8

Peer reviewed :

Peer reviewed

Commentary :

Available on ORBi :

since 18 December 2014

Statistics

Number of views

60 (8 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

3 (3 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Ferlay J., Parkin D.M., Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46:765-781.
Aebi S., Davidson T., Gruber G., Cardoso F. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2011, 22(Suppl.6):vi12-vi24. ESMO Guidelines Working Group.
Jemal A., Bray F., Center M.M., Ferlay J., Ward E., Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011, 61:69-90.
Lacey J.V., Kreimer A.R., Buys S.S., Marcus P.M., Chang S.C., Leitzmann M.F., et al. Breast cancer epidemiology according to recognized breast cancer risk factors in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial cohort. BMC Cancer 2009, 9:84.
Chen E., Tong K.B., Malin J.L. Cost-effectiveness of 70-gene MammaPrint signature in node-negative breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2010, 16:e333-e342.
La Vecchia C., Giordano S.H., Hortobagyi G.N., Chabner B. Overweight, obesity, diabetes, and risk of breast cancer: interlocking pieces of the puzzle. Oncologist 2011, 16:726-729.
Seitz H.K., Pelucchi C., Bagnardi V., La Vecchia C. Epidemiology and pathophysiology of alcohol and breast cancer: update 2012. Alcohol Alcohol 2012, 47:204-212.
Cox D.G., Dostal L., Hunter D.J., Le Marchand L., Hoover R., Ziegler R.G., et al. N-acetyltransferase 2 polymorphisms, tobacco smoking, and breast cancer risk in the breast and prostate cancer cohort consortium. Am J Epidemiol 2011, 174:1316-1322.
Terry P.D., Thun M.J., Rohan T.E. Does tobacco smoke cause breast cancer?. Women's Health (Lond Engl) 2011, 7:405-408.
Saurel C.A., Patel T.A., Perez E.A. Changes to adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: a decade in review. Clin Breast Cancer 2010, 10:196-208.
Goldhirsch A., Ingle J.N., Gelber R.D., Coates A.S., Thürlimann B., Senn H.J., et al. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009, 20:1319-1329.
Bueno-de-Mesquita J.M., van Harten W.H., van 't Veer L.J., van Dam F.S., Karsenberg K., Retel V.P., et al. Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol 2007, 8:1079-1087.
Bueno-de-Mesquita J.M., Linn S.C., Keijzer R., Wesseling J., Nuyten D.S., van Krimpen C., et al. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 117:483-495.
Bueno-de-Mesquita J.M., Sonke G.S., van de Vijver M.J., Linn S.C. Additional value and potential use of the 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer in daily clinical practice. Ann Oncol 2011, 22:2021-2030.
Buyse M., Loi S., van't Veer L., Viale G., Delorenzi M., Glas A.M., et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. JNatl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:1183-1192.
Mook S., Schmidt M.K., Viale G., Pruneri G., Eekhout I., Floore A., et al. The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 116:295-302.
Mook S., Schmidt M.K., Weigelt B., Kreike B., Eekhout I., van de Vijver M.J., et al. The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. Ann Oncol 2010, 21:717-722.
Drukker C.A., Bueno-de-Mesquita J.M., Retèl V.P., van Harten W.H., van Tinteren H., Wesseling J., et al. Aprospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 2013, 133(4):929-936. [Epub 2013 Mar 4]. 10.1002/ijc.28082.
Goldhirsch A., Winer E.P., Coates A.S., Gelber R.D., Piccart-Gebhart M., Thürlimann B., et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013, 24:2206-2223.
Allred D.C. Issues and updates: evaluating estrogen receptor-alpha, progesterone receptor, and HER2 in breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2010, 23(Suppl.2):S52-S59.
Arihiro K., Umemura S., Kurosumi M., Moriya T., Oyama T., Yamashita H., et al. Comparison of evaluations for hormone receptors in breast carcinoma using two manual and three automated immunohistochemical assays. Am J Clin Pathol 2007, 127:356-365.
Hammond M.E., Hayes D.F., Wolff A.C., Mangu P.B., Temin S. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. JOncol Pract 2010, 6:195-197.
Oyama T., Ishikawa Y., Hayashi M., Arihiro K., Horiguchi J. The effects of fixation, processing and evaluation criteria on immunohistochemical detection of hormone receptors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2007, 14:182-188.
Bueno-de-Mesquita J.M., Nuyten D.S., Wesseling J., van Tinteren H., Linn S.C., van de Vijver M.J. The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment. Ann Oncol 2010, 21:40-47.
Glas A.M., Floore A., Delahaye L.J., Witteveen A.T., Pover R.C., Bakx N., et al. Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics 2006, 7:278.
Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO) Breast cancer guidelines. Version 2.0 13 February 2012.
Christiaens M.-R., Vlayen J., Gailly J., et al. Support scientifique du Collège d'Oncologie: un guideline pour la prise en charge du cancer du sein. Good Clin Pract (GCP) 2007, Centre fédéral d'expertise des soins de santé (KCE), Bruxelles, KCE reports 63B (D2007/10.273/36).
Cardoso F., Stordeur S., Vlayen S., et al. Soutien scientifique au Collège d'Oncologie: mise à jour des recommandations de bonne pratique pour la prise en charge du cancer du sein. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) 2010, Centre fédéral d'expertise des soins de santé (KCE), Bruxelles, KCE Reports 143B. D/2012/10.273/07.
Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica Linee guida neoplasie della mammella 1982, Available from:. http://www.aiom.it/area+pubblica/area+medica/prodotti+scientifici/linee+guida/Neoplasie+della+mammella/1.
del Barco Berrón S., Ciruelos Gil E., Tusquets Trías de Bes I., Muñoz Mateu, Sánchez Rovira P., Rodríguez Lescure Á., et al. SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of early breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2010, 12:711-718.
Albanell J., González A., Ruiz-Borrego M., Alba E., García-Saenz J.A., Corominas J.M., et al. Prospective transGEICAM study of the impact of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and traditional clinicopathological factors on adjuvant clinical decision making in women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) node-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2012, 23:625-631.
Glück S., Yip A.Y., Ng E.L. Can we replace the microscope with microarrays for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of early breast cancer?. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2012, 16(Suppl.S1):S17-S22.
Knauer M., Mook S., Rutgers E.J., Bender R.A., Hauptmann M., van de Vijver M.J., et al. The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010, 120(3):655-661.
Straver M.E., Glas A.M., Hannemann J., Wesseling J., van de Vijver M.J., Rutgers E.J., et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Br Cancer Res Treat 2009, 119(3):551-558.
Chen F.P. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of breast cancer. Chang Gung Med J 2009, 32:140-147.
Retèl V.P., Joore M.A., Knauer M., Linn S.C., Hauptmann M., Harten W.H. Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant Online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46:1382-1391.
Yang M., Rajan S., Issa A.M. Cost effectiveness of gene expression profiling for early stage breast cancer: a decision-analytic model. Cancer 2012, 118:5163-5170.