198
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gene expression profiling spares early breast cancer patients from adjuvant therapy: derived and validated in two population-based cohorts

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Introduction

          Adjuvant breast cancer therapy significantly improves survival, but overtreatment and undertreatment are major problems. Breast cancer expression profiling has so far mainly been used to identify women with a poor prognosis as candidates for adjuvant therapy but without demonstrated value for therapy prediction.

          Methods

          We obtained the gene expression profiles of 159 population-derived breast cancer patients, and used hierarchical clustering to identify the signature associated with prognosis and impact of adjuvant therapies, defined as distant metastasis or death within 5 years. Independent datasets of 76 treated population-derived Swedish patients, 135 untreated population-derived Swedish patients and 78 Dutch patients were used for validation. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies of population-derived Swedish patients were defined.

          Results

          Among the 159 patients, a subset of 64 genes was found to give an optimal separation of patients with good and poor outcomes. Hierarchical clustering revealed three subgroups: patients who did well with therapy, patients who did well without therapy, and patients that failed to benefit from given therapy. The expression profile gave significantly better prognostication (odds ratio, 4.19; P = 0.007) (breast cancer end-points odds ratio, 10.64) compared with the Elston–Ellis histological grading (odds ratio of grade 2 vs 1 and grade 3 vs 1, 2.81 and 3.32 respectively; P = 0.24 and 0.16), tumor stage (odds ratio of stage 2 vs 1 and stage 3 vs 1, 1.11 and 1.28; P = 0.83 and 0.68) and age (odds ratio, 0.11; P = 0.55). The risk groups were consistent and validated in the independent Swedish and Dutch data sets used with 211 and 78 patients, respectively.

          Conclusion

          We have identified discriminatory gene expression signatures working both on untreated and systematically treated primary breast cancer patients with the potential to spare them from adjuvant therapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

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

          Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up.

          Morphological assessment of the degree of differentiation has been shown in numerous studies to provide useful prognostic information in breast cancer, but until recently histological grading has not been accepted as a routine procedure, mainly because of perceived problems with reproducibility and consistency. In the Nottingham/Tenovus Primary Breast Cancer Study the most commonly used method, described by Bloom & Richardson, has been modified in order to make the criteria more objective. The revised technique involves semiquantitative evaluation of three morphological features--the percentage of tubule formation, the degree of nuclear pleomorphism and an accurate mitotic count using a defined field area. A numerical scoring system is used and the overall grade is derived from a summation of individual scores for the three variables: three grades of differentiation are used. Since 1973, over 2200 patients with primary operable breast cancer have been entered into a study of multiple prognostic factors. Histological grade, assessed in 1831 patients, shows a very strong correlation with prognosis; patients with grade I tumours have a significantly better survival than those with grade II and III tumours (P less than 0.0001). These results demonstrate that this method for histological grading provides important prognostic information and, if the grading protocol is followed consistently, reproducible results can be obtained. Histological grade forms part of the multifactorial Nottingham prognostic index, together with tumour size and lymph node stage, which is used to stratify individual patients for appropriate therapy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Large-scale meta-analysis of cancer microarray data identifies common transcriptional profiles of neoplastic transformation and progression.

            Many studies have used DNA microarrays to identify the gene expression signatures of human cancer, yet the critical features of these often unmanageably large signatures remain elusive. To address this, we developed a statistical method, comparative metaprofiling, which identifies and assesses the intersection of multiple gene expression signatures from a diverse collection of microarray data sets. We collected and analyzed 40 published cancer microarray data sets, comprising 38 million gene expression measurements from >3,700 cancer samples. From this, we characterized a common transcriptional profile that is universally activated in most cancer types relative to the normal tissues from which they arose, likely reflecting essential transcriptional features of neoplastic transformation. In addition, we characterized a transcriptional profile that is commonly activated in various types of undifferentiated cancer, suggesting common molecular mechanisms by which cancer cells progress and avoid differentiation. Finally, we validated these transcriptional profiles on independent data sets.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group.

              There have been many randomised trials of adjuvant tamoxifen among women with early breast cancer, and an updated overview of their results is presented. In 1995, information was sought on each woman in any randomised trial that began before 1990 of adjuvant tamoxifen versus no tamoxifen before recurrence. Information was obtained and analysed centrally on each of 37000 women in 55 such trials, comprising about 87% of the worldwide evidence. Compared with the previous such overview, this approximately doubles the amount of evidence from trials of about 5 years of tamoxifen and, taking all trials together, on events occurring more than 5 years after randomisation. Nearly 8000 of the women had a low, or zero, level of the oestrogen-receptor protein (ER) measured in their primary tumour. Among them, the overall effects of tamoxifen appeared to be small, and subsequent analyses of recurrence and total mortality are restricted to the remaining women (18000 with ER-positive tumours, plus nearly 12000 more with untested tumours, of which an estimated 8000 would have been ER-positive). For trials of 1 year, 2 years, and about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, the proportional recurrence reductions produced among these 30000 women during about 10 years of follow-up were 21% (SD 3), 29% (SD 2), and 47% (SD 3), respectively, with a highly significant trend towards greater effect with longer treatment (chi2(1)=52.0, 2p<0.00001). The corresponding proportional mortality reductions were 12% (SD 3), 17% (SD 3), and 26% (SD 4), respectively, and again the test for trend was significant (chi2(1) = 8.8, 2p=0.003). The absolute improvement in recurrence was greater during the first 5 years, whereas the improvement in survival grew steadily larger throughout the first 10 years. The proportional mortality reductions were similar for women with node-positive and node-negative disease, but the absolute mortality reductions were greater in node-positive women. In the trials of about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen the absolute improvements in 10-year survival were 10.9% (SD 2.5) for node-positive (61.4% vs 50.5% survival, 2p<0.00001) and 5.6% (SD 1.3) for node-negative (78.9% vs 73.3% survival, 2p<0.00001). These benefits appeared to be largely irrespective of age, menopausal status, daily tamoxifen dose (which was generally 20 mg), and of whether chemotherapy had been given to both groups. In terms of other outcomes among all women studied (ie, including those with "ER-poor" tumours), the proportional reductions in contralateral breast cancer were 13% (SD 13), 26% (SD 9), and 47% (SD 9) in the trials of 1, 2, or about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. The incidence of endometrial cancer was approximately doubled in trials of 1 or 2 years of tamoxifen and approximately quadrupled in trials of 5 years of tamoxifen (although the number of cases was small and these ratios were not significantly different from each other). The absolute decrease in contralateral breast cancer was about twice as large as the absolute increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer. Tamoxifen had no apparent effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer or, after exclusion of deaths from breast or endometrial cancer, on any of the other main categories of cause of death (total nearly 2000 such deaths; overall relative risk 0.99 [SD 0.05]). For women with tumours that have been reliably shown to be ER-negative, adjuvant tamoxifen remains a matter for research. However, some years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment substantially improves the 10-year survival of women with ER-positive tumours and of women whose tumours are of unknown ER status, with the proportional reductions in breast cancer recurrence and in mortality appearing to be largely unaffected by other patient characteristics or treatments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Breast Cancer Res
                Breast Cancer Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1465-5411
                1465-542X
                2005
                3 October 2005
                : 7
                : 6
                : R953-R964
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                [2 ]Department of Oncology and Pathology, Radiumhemmet, Karolinska Institutet and University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ]Genentech, San Francisco, California, USA
                [4 ]Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
                [5 ]Regional Oncological Center, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                [6 ]Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore
                [7 ]Department of Pathology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                [8 ]Department of Surgery Sciences, Karolinska Institutet and Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                Article
                bcr1325
                10.1186/bcr1325
                1410752
                16280042
                a880f11b-d383-4eca-9a34-9ebbe5dca5a8
                Copyright © 2005 Pawitan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 May 2005
                : 29 July 2005
                : 19 August 2005
                : 2 September 2005
                Categories
                Research Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article