Cargando…

Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests

Inter-test concordance between the MammaPrint and the EndoPredict tests used to predict the risk of recurrence in breast cancer was evaluated in 94 oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers. We correlated histopathological data with clinical risk estimation as defined in the MINDACT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jahn, Stephan Wenzel, Bösl, Andreas, Tsybrovskyy, Oleksiy, Gruber-Rossipal, Christine, Helfgott, Ruth, Fitzal, Florian, Knauer, Michael, Balic, Marija, Jasarevic, Zerina, Offner, Felix, Moinfar, Farid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7283343/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32336753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0838-2
_version_ 1783544283376123904
author Jahn, Stephan Wenzel
Bösl, Andreas
Tsybrovskyy, Oleksiy
Gruber-Rossipal, Christine
Helfgott, Ruth
Fitzal, Florian
Knauer, Michael
Balic, Marija
Jasarevic, Zerina
Offner, Felix
Moinfar, Farid
author_facet Jahn, Stephan Wenzel
Bösl, Andreas
Tsybrovskyy, Oleksiy
Gruber-Rossipal, Christine
Helfgott, Ruth
Fitzal, Florian
Knauer, Michael
Balic, Marija
Jasarevic, Zerina
Offner, Felix
Moinfar, Farid
author_sort Jahn, Stephan Wenzel
collection PubMed
description Inter-test concordance between the MammaPrint and the EndoPredict tests used to predict the risk of recurrence in breast cancer was evaluated in 94 oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers. We correlated histopathological data with clinical risk estimation as defined in the MINDACT trial. 42.6% (40/94) of cases were high-risk by MammaPrint, 44.7% (42/94) by EndoPredict (EPclin), and 45.7% (43/94) by clinical risk definition. Thirty-six percent of genomic risk predictions were discordant with a low inter-test correlation between EndoPredict and MammaPrint (p = 0.012; κ = 0.27, 95% CI [0.069, 0.46]). Clinical risk stratification did not correlate with MammaPrint (p = 0.476) but highly correlated with EndoPredict (p < 0.001). Consequently, clinically high-risk tumours (n = 43) were more frequently high-risk by EndoPredict than by MammaPrint (76.6% vs. 46.5%, p = 0.004), with 44% of cases discordantly classified and no significant association between genomic risk predictions (p = 0.294). Clinicians need to be aware that clinical pre-stratification can profoundly influence multigenomic test performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7283343
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72833432021-04-27 Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests Jahn, Stephan Wenzel Bösl, Andreas Tsybrovskyy, Oleksiy Gruber-Rossipal, Christine Helfgott, Ruth Fitzal, Florian Knauer, Michael Balic, Marija Jasarevic, Zerina Offner, Felix Moinfar, Farid Br J Cancer Brief Communication Inter-test concordance between the MammaPrint and the EndoPredict tests used to predict the risk of recurrence in breast cancer was evaluated in 94 oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers. We correlated histopathological data with clinical risk estimation as defined in the MINDACT trial. 42.6% (40/94) of cases were high-risk by MammaPrint, 44.7% (42/94) by EndoPredict (EPclin), and 45.7% (43/94) by clinical risk definition. Thirty-six percent of genomic risk predictions were discordant with a low inter-test correlation between EndoPredict and MammaPrint (p = 0.012; κ = 0.27, 95% CI [0.069, 0.46]). Clinical risk stratification did not correlate with MammaPrint (p = 0.476) but highly correlated with EndoPredict (p < 0.001). Consequently, clinically high-risk tumours (n = 43) were more frequently high-risk by EndoPredict than by MammaPrint (76.6% vs. 46.5%, p = 0.004), with 44% of cases discordantly classified and no significant association between genomic risk predictions (p = 0.294). Clinicians need to be aware that clinical pre-stratification can profoundly influence multigenomic test performance. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-04-27 2020-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7283343/ /pubmed/32336753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0838-2 Text en © Cancer Research UK 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Note This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
spellingShingle Brief Communication
Jahn, Stephan Wenzel
Bösl, Andreas
Tsybrovskyy, Oleksiy
Gruber-Rossipal, Christine
Helfgott, Ruth
Fitzal, Florian
Knauer, Michael
Balic, Marija
Jasarevic, Zerina
Offner, Felix
Moinfar, Farid
Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests
title Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests
title_full Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests
title_fullStr Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests
title_full_unstemmed Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests
title_short Clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the MammaPrint and EndoPredict tests
title_sort clinically high-risk breast cancer displays markedly discordant molecular risk predictions between the mammaprint and endopredict tests
topic Brief Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7283343/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32336753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0838-2
work_keys_str_mv AT jahnstephanwenzel clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT boslandreas clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT tsybrovskyyoleksiy clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT gruberrossipalchristine clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT helfgottruth clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT fitzalflorian clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT knauermichael clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT balicmarija clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT jasareviczerina clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT offnerfelix clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests
AT moinfarfarid clinicallyhighriskbreastcancerdisplaysmarkedlydiscordantmolecularriskpredictionsbetweenthemammaprintandendopredicttests