Adjuvant Chemotherapy De-Escalation with Genomic Assay Protocol in Patients with Early Breast Cancer: A Single-Centre Prospective Cohort Study

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.18539

Keywords:

Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal, Breast Neoplasms, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Gene Expression Profiling, Precision Medicine

Abstract

Introduction: Genomic assays are useful tools for tailoring adjuvant treatment in early breast cancer. We aimed to analyse the role of an institutional protocol of a genomic assay for chemotherapy de-escalation.
Methods: Prospective cohort study of all consecutive women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer, tested with the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay from August 2015 to July 2018 at a Portuguese cancer centre. For being tested, patients should meet at least one of the pre-defined inclusion criteria: i) luminal A-like, pT2pN0; ii) luminal A-like, 1 – 3 positive nodes and comorbidities with higher risk of chemotherapy-induced toxicity; iii) pT1-2pN0, progesterone receptor ≤ 20% and/or Ki67 14% – 40%. Adjuvant treatment was de-escalated to isolated endocrine therapy if RS was less than 18. We measured the reduction in chemotherapy prescribing and its clinical impact, the RS association with pathologic features, and the protocol feasibility.
Results: We tested 154 women with a median age of 61 years old (range: 25 – 79), 69% postmenopausal. Tumours were mainly pT1 (55%), pN0 (82%), invasive ductal (73%), G2 (86%), luminal B-like (69%) and stage IA (85%). We obtained a RS less than 18 in 60% of women, with an overall adjuvant chemotherapy reduction of 65%. Seven (95% confidence interval: 5 – 10) patients needed to be screened with the 21-gene RS assay to prevent one clinically relevant adverse event during the first six months of adjuvant treatment. Considering the currently used RS cut-off, only 9% of node-negative and 11% of node-positive patients had RS over 25. We found no relevant associations between RS and pathologic features. The protocol was feasible and did not compromise the adequate timing for adjuvant treatment.
Conclusion: These criteria allowed the de-escalation of adjuvant systemic treatment in at least six out of ten women.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, Newman LA, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:438-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21583

Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, 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;24:2206-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt303

Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041588

Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:111-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1804710

Kalinsky K, Barlow WE, Gralow JR, Meric-Bernstam F, Albain KS, Hayes DF, et al. 21-gene assay to inform chemotherapy benefit in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2336-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2108873

Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2005-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1510764

Singh K, He X, Kalife ET, Ehdaivand S, Wang Y, Sung CJ. Relationship of histologic grade and histologic subtype with Oncotype Dx recurrence score; retrospective review of 863 breast cancer oncotype Dx results. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168:29-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4619-4

Wilson PC, Chagpar AB, Cicek AF, Bossuyt V, Buza N, Mougalian S, et al. Breast cancer histopathology is predictive of low-risk Oncotype Dx recurrence score. Breast J. 2018;24:976-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13117

Kronqvist P, Kuopio T, Nykänen M, Helenius H, Anttinen J, Klemi P, et al. Predicting aggressive outcome in T1N0M0 breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:277-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601948

Sahebjam S, Aloyz R, Pilavdzic D, Brisson ML, Ferrario C, Bouganim N, et al. Ki 67 is a major, but not the sole determinant of Oncotype Dx recurrence score. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:1342-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.402

Tan AC, Li BT, Nahar K, Danieletto S, Fong ES, Currer T, et al. Correlating Ki67 and other prognostic markers with Oncotype DX recurrence score in early estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2018;14:e161-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12779

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2017 [cited 2022 May 09]. Available from: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_5x7.pdf.

Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limitis illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26:404-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/26.4.404

Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. Br Med J. 1998;317:307-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7154.307

Hannouf MB, Xie B, Brackstone M, Zaric GS. Cost-effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in women with early-stage estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-447

Lamond NW, Skedgel C, Younis T. Is the 21-gene recurrence score a cost-effective assay in endocrine-sensitive node-negative breast cancer? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:243-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.13.4

Ozmen V, Cakar B, Gokmen E, Ozdogan M, Guler N, Uras C, et al. Cost effectiveness of gene expression profiling in patients with early-stage breast cancer in a middle-income country. Turkey: results of a prospective multicenter study. Eur J Breast Heal. 2019;15:183-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/ejbh.2019.4761

Berdunov V, Millen S, Paramore A, Hall P, Perren T, Brown R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test in node-positive early breast cancer. J Med Econ. 2022;25:591-604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2022.2066399

Burstein HJ, Curigliano G, Loibl S, Dubsky P, Gnant M, Poortmans P, et al. Estimating the benefits of therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2019. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1541-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz235

Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1194-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173

Burstein HJ, Curigliano G, Thürlimann B, Weber WP, Poortmans P, Regan MM, et al. Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for Treatment of Early Breast Cancer 2021. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1216-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.023

Antoine EC, Coeffic D, Spaeth D, Darmon JC, Spano JP. Paradygm: impact of 21 Genes Recurrence Score Assay (ODX) on final decision and heterogeneity of decisions between different tumor boards. Eur J Cancer. 2018;92:S145-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(18)30661-0

Cognetti F, Masetti R, Fabi A, Bianchi G, Santini D, Rognone A, et al. PONDx: real-life utilization and decision impact of the 21-gene assay on clinical practice in Italy. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021;7:1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-021-00246-4

Charles C, Cutuli B. 11P Real-world analysis of oncotype DX recurrence score (ODX RS) indications and impact on adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) decisions: experience from the French LISE cohort. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.03.026

Published

2023-02-06

How to Cite

1.
Martins-Branco D, Cristóvão Ferreira S, Gouveia E, André S, Esteves S, Brito M, Moreira A. Adjuvant Chemotherapy De-Escalation with Genomic Assay Protocol in Patients with Early Breast Cancer: A Single-Centre Prospective Cohort Study. Acta Med Port [Internet]. 2023 Feb. 6 [cited 2024 Jul. 25];36(7-8):487-95. Available from: https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/18539