Abstract
Abstract
Aims
Clinicians use multi-gene/biomarker prognostic tests and free online tools to optimize treatment in early ER+/HER2− breast cancer. Here we report the comparison of recurrence risk predictions by CanAssist Breast (CAB), Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), and PREDICT along with the differences in the performance of these tests across Indian and European cohorts.
Methods
Current study used a retrospective cohort of 1474 patients from Europe, India, and USA. NPI risk groups were categorized into three prognostic groups, good (GPG-NPI index ≤ 3.4) moderate (MPG 3.41–5.4), and poor (PPG > 5.4). Patients with chemotherapy benefit of < 2% were low-risk and ≥ 2% high-risk by PREDICT. We assessed the agreement between the CAB and NPI/PREDICT risk groups by kappa coefficient.
Results
Risk proportions generated by all tools were: CAB low:high 74:26; NPI good:moderate:poor prognostic group- 38:55:7; PREDICT low:high 63:37. Overall, there was a fair agreement between CAB and NPI[κ = 0.31(0.278–0.346)]/PREDICT [κ = 0.398 (0.35–0.446)], with a concordance of 97%/88% between CAB and NPI/PREDICT low-risk categories. 65% of NPI-MPG patients were called low-risk by CAB. From PREDICT high-risk patients CAB segregated 51% as low-risk, thus preventing over-treatment in these patients. In cohorts (European) with a higher number of T1N0 patients, NPI/PREDICT segregated more as LR compared to CAB, suggesting that T1N0 patients with aggressive biology are missed out by online tools but not by the CAB.
Conclusion
Data shows the use of CAB in early breast cancer overall and specifically in NPI-MPG and PREDICT high-risk patients for making accurate decisions on chemotherapy use. CAB provided unbiased risk stratification across cohorts of various geographies with minimal impact by clinical parameters.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717
2. Chen LL, Nolan ME, Silverstein MJ, Mihm MC Jr, Sober AJ, Tanabe KK et al (2009) The impact of primary tumor size, lymph node status, and other prognostic factors on the risk of cancer death. Cancer 115(21):5071–5083
3. Wazir U, Mokbel K, Carmichael A, Mokbel K (2017) Are online prediction tools a valid alternative to genomic profiling in the context of systemic treatment of ER-positive breast cancer? Cell Mol Biol Lett 22:20
4. Mokbel K, Wazir U, El Hage CH, Manson A, Choy C, Moye V et al (2017) A comparison of the performance of EndoPredict clinical and NHS PREDICT in 120 patients treated for ER-positive Breast Cancer. Anticancer Res 37(12):6863–6869
5. van Maaren MC, van Steenbeek CD, Pharoah PDP, Witteveen A, Sonke GS, Strobbe LJA et al (2017) Validation of the online prediction tool PREDICT v. 2.0 in the Dutch breast cancer population. Eur J Cancer 86:364–372
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献