0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Background: Previous reports identifying discordance between multiparameter tests at the individual patient level have been largely attributed to methodological shortcomings of multiple in silico studies. Comparisons between tests, when performed using actual diagnostic assays, have been predicted to demonstrate high degrees of concordance. OPTIMA prelim compared predicted risk stratification and subtype classification of different multiparameter tests performed directly on the same population.

          Methods: Three hundred thirteen women with early breast cancer were randomized to standard (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or test-directed (chemotherapy if Oncotype DX recurrence score >25) treatment. Risk stratification was also determined with Prosigna (PAM50), MammaPrint, MammaTyper, NexCourse Breast (IHC4-AQUA), and conventional IHC4 (IHC4). Subtype classification was provided by Blueprint, MammaTyper, and Prosigna.

          Results: Oncotype DX predicted a higher proportion of tumors as low risk (82.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.8% to 86.4%) than were predicted low/intermediate risk using Prosigna (65.5%, 95% CI = 60.1% to 70.9%), IHC4 (72.0%, 95% CI = 66.5% to 77.5%), MammaPrint (61.4%, 95% CI = 55.9% to 66.9%), or NexCourse Breast (61.6%, 95% CI = 55.8% to 67.4%). Strikingly, the five tests showed only modest agreement when dichotomizing results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Only 119 (39.4%) tumors were classified uniformly as either low/intermediate risk or high risk, and 183 (60.6%) were assigned to different risk categories by different tests, although 94 (31.1%) showed agreement between four of five tests. All three subtype tests assigned 59.5% to 62.4% of tumors to luminal A subtype, but only 121 (40.1%) were classified as luminal A by all three tests and only 58 (19.2%) were uniformly assigned as nonluminal A. Discordant subtyping was observed in 123 (40.7%) tumors.

          Conclusions: Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests that current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorization and subtype information.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Natl Cancer Inst
          J. Natl. Cancer Inst
          jnci
          JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
          Oxford University Press
          0027-8874
          1460-2105
          April 2016
          27 April 2016
          27 April 2017
          : 108
          : 9
          : djw050
          Affiliations
          Affiliations of authors: Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (JMSB, JB); University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (JMSB); University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (JMSB, CC, MSS, PSH, DAC); Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK (AM, JAD, AC); University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK (CJP); University of Cambridge Department of Oncology and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK (HME); Cancer Research UK Institute for Cancer Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK (DWR); University of Glasgow, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK (IRM, PC); University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK (AF); University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada (CM); Kings College London, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK (SEP); Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK (LHD); Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Middlesex, UK (AM); National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK (RCS).
          Author notes

          *Authors contributed equally to this work.

          Correspondence to: John M. S. Bartlett, BSc, PhD, FRCPath, Director of Transformative Pathology, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, 661 University Avenue, Suite 510, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 0A3 (e-mail: john.bartlett@ 123456oicr.on.ca ).
          Article
          PMC5939629 PMC5939629 5939629 djw050
          10.1093/jnci/djw050
          5939629
          27130929
          763e74e3-1a63-4d1e-9e05-e1cc9f7f8ecd
          © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
          History
          : 06 August 2015
          : 22 December 2015
          : 17 February 2016
          Page count
          Pages: 9
          Funding
          Funded by: NIH 10.13039/100000002
          Categories
          Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Smart Citations
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content355

          Cited by79