Daniela Alves da Quinta, Darío Rocha, Javier Retamales, Diego Giunta, Nora Artagaveytia, Carlos Velazquez, Adrian Daneri-Navarro, Bettina Müller, Eliana Abdelhay, Alicia I Bravo, Mónica Castro, Cristina Rosales, Elsa Alcoba, Gabriela Acosta Haab, Fernando Carrizo, Irene Sorin, Alejandro Di Sibio, Márcia Marques-Silveira, Renata Binato, Benedicta Caserta, Gonzalo Greif, Alicia Del Toro-Arreola, Antonio Quintero-Ramos, Jorge Gómez, Osvaldo L Podhajcer, Elmer A Fernández, Andrea S Llera
{"title":"Closing the gap: prognostic and predictive biomarker validation for personalized care in a Latin American hormone-dependent breast cancer cohort.","authors":"Daniela Alves da Quinta, Darío Rocha, Javier Retamales, Diego Giunta, Nora Artagaveytia, Carlos Velazquez, Adrian Daneri-Navarro, Bettina Müller, Eliana Abdelhay, Alicia I Bravo, Mónica Castro, Cristina Rosales, Elsa Alcoba, Gabriela Acosta Haab, Fernando Carrizo, Irene Sorin, Alejandro Di Sibio, Márcia Marques-Silveira, Renata Binato, Benedicta Caserta, Gonzalo Greif, Alicia Del Toro-Arreola, Antonio Quintero-Ramos, Jorge Gómez, Osvaldo L Podhajcer, Elmer A Fernández, Andrea S Llera","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyae191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several guidelines recommend the use of different classifiers to determine the risk of recurrence (ROR) and treatment decisions in patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer. However, data are still lacking for their usefulness in Latin American (LA) patients. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative prognostic and predictive performance of different ROR classifiers in a real-world LA cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Molecular Profile of Breast Cancer Study (MPBCS) is an LA case-cohort study with 5-year follow-up. Stages I and II, clinically node-negative HR+HER2- patients (n = 340) who received adjuvant hormone therapy and/or chemotherapy, were analyzed. Time-dependent receiver-operator characteristic-area under the curve, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression (CPHR) models were used to compare the prognostic performance of several risk biomarkers. Multivariate CPHR with interaction models tested the predictive ability of selected risk classifiers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within this cohort, transcriptomic-based classifiers such as the recurrence score (RS), EndoPredict (EP risk and EPClin), and PAM50-risk of recurrence scores (ROR-S and ROR-PC) presented better prognostic performances for node-negative patients (univariate C-index 0.61-0.68, adjusted C-index 0.77-0.80, adjusted hazard ratios [HR] between high and low risk: 4.06-9.97) than the traditional classifiers Ki67 and Nottingham Prognostic Index (univariate C-index 0.53-0.59, adjusted C-index 0.72-0.75, and adjusted HR 1.85-2.54). RS (and to some extent, EndoPredict) also showed predictive capacity for chemotherapy benefit in node-negative patients (interaction P = .0200 and .0510, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In summary, we could prove the clinical validity of most transcriptomic-based risk classifiers and their superiority over clinical and immunohistochemical-based methods in the heterogenous, real-world node-negative HR+HER2- MPBCS cohort.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":" ","pages":"e1701-e1713"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11630759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae191","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Several guidelines recommend the use of different classifiers to determine the risk of recurrence (ROR) and treatment decisions in patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer. However, data are still lacking for their usefulness in Latin American (LA) patients. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative prognostic and predictive performance of different ROR classifiers in a real-world LA cohort.
Methods: The Molecular Profile of Breast Cancer Study (MPBCS) is an LA case-cohort study with 5-year follow-up. Stages I and II, clinically node-negative HR+HER2- patients (n = 340) who received adjuvant hormone therapy and/or chemotherapy, were analyzed. Time-dependent receiver-operator characteristic-area under the curve, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression (CPHR) models were used to compare the prognostic performance of several risk biomarkers. Multivariate CPHR with interaction models tested the predictive ability of selected risk classifiers.
Results: Within this cohort, transcriptomic-based classifiers such as the recurrence score (RS), EndoPredict (EP risk and EPClin), and PAM50-risk of recurrence scores (ROR-S and ROR-PC) presented better prognostic performances for node-negative patients (univariate C-index 0.61-0.68, adjusted C-index 0.77-0.80, adjusted hazard ratios [HR] between high and low risk: 4.06-9.97) than the traditional classifiers Ki67 and Nottingham Prognostic Index (univariate C-index 0.53-0.59, adjusted C-index 0.72-0.75, and adjusted HR 1.85-2.54). RS (and to some extent, EndoPredict) also showed predictive capacity for chemotherapy benefit in node-negative patients (interaction P = .0200 and .0510, respectively).
Conclusion: In summary, we could prove the clinical validity of most transcriptomic-based risk classifiers and their superiority over clinical and immunohistochemical-based methods in the heterogenous, real-world node-negative HR+HER2- MPBCS cohort.
期刊介绍:
The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.