OncotypeDX Testing Does Not Benefit Patients with Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Positive Grade 1 Breast Cancers: A TAILORx Validated Study.

Udai S Sibia, Charles Mylander, Tasha Martin, Martin Rosman, Thomas J Sanders, Young Lee, Lorraine Tafra, Rubie S Jackson
{"title":"OncotypeDX Testing Does Not Benefit Patients with Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Positive Grade 1 Breast Cancers: A TAILORx Validated Study.","authors":"Udai S Sibia,&nbsp;Charles Mylander,&nbsp;Tasha Martin,&nbsp;Martin Rosman,&nbsp;Thomas J Sanders,&nbsp;Young Lee,&nbsp;Lorraine Tafra,&nbsp;Rubie S Jackson","doi":"10.56875/2589-0646.1089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background & objectives: </strong>We previously described a predictive AAMC model that identifies patients (grade 1, hormonepositive) who would not benefit from OncotypeDX testing. The purpose of this study was to validate the AAMC model by assessing distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) using TAILORx clinical trial data.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed TAILORx trial data and categorized patients based on the AAMC model. AAMC low-risk patients are those with grade 1 and hormone-positive tumors. Kaplan-Meier curves examined DRFI and IDFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 9195 cases, 2246 (24.4%) were identified by AAMC as low-risk. Among these AAMC low-risk patients, 55.2% had Recurrence Score (RS) 0-15, 42.3% had RS 15-25, and 2.4% had RS > 25. The 10-year DRFI did not differ for those who received adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not (98% vs. 96%, log-rank p = 0.46). Similarly, IDFS was comparable between those who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those that did not (86% vs. 86%, log-rank p = 0.66). Only 2.4% of AAMC low-risk patients were categorized as high-risk (RS > 25). A sensitivity analysis of this discordant group, wherein those with RS > 25 were re-classified into the no-chemotherapy group and assumed to have experienced recurrences at the rate expected without chemotherapy, did not find any difference in DRFI between those who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not (log-rank p = 0.16).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OncotypeDX testing does not benefit AAMC low-risk patients with hormone-positive grade 1 tumors. Based on these data, 1 in 4 TAILORx participants would not need OncotypeDX testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":39226,"journal":{"name":"Hematology/ Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy","volume":"16 4","pages":"412-419"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hematology/ Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56875/2589-0646.1089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background & objectives: We previously described a predictive AAMC model that identifies patients (grade 1, hormonepositive) who would not benefit from OncotypeDX testing. The purpose of this study was to validate the AAMC model by assessing distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) using TAILORx clinical trial data.

Materials & methods: We retrospectively analyzed TAILORx trial data and categorized patients based on the AAMC model. AAMC low-risk patients are those with grade 1 and hormone-positive tumors. Kaplan-Meier curves examined DRFI and IDFS.

Results: Of the 9195 cases, 2246 (24.4%) were identified by AAMC as low-risk. Among these AAMC low-risk patients, 55.2% had Recurrence Score (RS) 0-15, 42.3% had RS 15-25, and 2.4% had RS > 25. The 10-year DRFI did not differ for those who received adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not (98% vs. 96%, log-rank p = 0.46). Similarly, IDFS was comparable between those who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those that did not (86% vs. 86%, log-rank p = 0.66). Only 2.4% of AAMC low-risk patients were categorized as high-risk (RS > 25). A sensitivity analysis of this discordant group, wherein those with RS > 25 were re-classified into the no-chemotherapy group and assumed to have experienced recurrences at the rate expected without chemotherapy, did not find any difference in DRFI between those who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not (log-rank p = 0.16).

Conclusion: OncotypeDX testing does not benefit AAMC low-risk patients with hormone-positive grade 1 tumors. Based on these data, 1 in 4 TAILORx participants would not need OncotypeDX testing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
OncotypeDX检测不能使雌激素和孕激素受体阳性的1级乳腺癌患者受益:一项TAILORx验证研究
背景与目的:我们之前描述了一种预测性AAMC模型,该模型可识别无法从OncotypeDX检测中获益的患者(1级,激素阳性)。本研究的目的是通过使用TAILORx临床试验数据评估远端无复发间期(DRFI)和侵袭性无病生存期(IDFS)来验证AAMC模型。材料与方法:我们回顾性分析TAILORx试验数据,并根据AAMC模型对患者进行分类。AAMC低风险患者是那些1级和激素阳性的肿瘤。Kaplan-Meier曲线检测DRFI和IDFS。结果:9195例患者中,2246例(24.4%)经AAMC诊断为低危。在AAMC低危患者中,复发评分(RS) 0 ~ 15的占55.2%,15 ~ 25的占42.3%,RS > 25的占2.4%。接受辅助化疗的患者与未接受辅助化疗的患者的10年DRFI无差异(98% vs 96%, log-rank p = 0.46)。同样,IDFS在接受辅助化疗和未接受辅助化疗的患者之间具有可比性(86% vs 86%, log-rank p = 0.66)。只有2.4%的AAMC低危患者被归为高危(RS > 25)。对这一不一致组进行敏感性分析,其中RS > 25的患者被重新分类为非化疗组,并假设其复发率与未化疗组相同,接受辅助化疗的患者和未接受辅助化疗的患者在DRFI方面没有任何差异(log-rank p = 0.16)。结论:OncotypeDX检测不能使AAMC低风险的1级激素阳性肿瘤患者获益。基于这些数据,四分之一的TAILORx参与者不需要OncotypeDX检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Hematology Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that provides a vehicle for publications of high-quality clinical as well as basic science research reports in hematology and oncology. The contents of the journal also emphasize the growing importance of hematopoietic stem cell therapy for treatment of various benign and malignant hematologic disorders and certain solid tumors.The journal prioritizes publication of original research articles but also would give consideration for brief reports, review articles, special communications, and unique case reports. It also offers a special section for clinically relevant images that provide an important educational value.
期刊最新文献
Side Effects After Use of Bedside Thaw Method for Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Allogeneic Transplantations in a Pediatric Cohort: A Single-center Experience. Role of Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Adult Immune Hematological Diseases. Improved Quality of Life of Patients With Sickle Cell Disease after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant: Another Indication for Transplant. Therapy-related Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors: Risk, Survival Outcomes and Prognostic Factor Analysis. Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Intraluminal Brachytherapy vs Isolated Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage with internalization for Unresectable Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Prospective Observational Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1