Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013; 73(9): 932-940
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1350831
DGGG Review
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Multigene Assays for Classification, Prognosis, and Prediction in Breast Cancer: a Critical Review on the Background and Clinical Utility

Multigenassays zur Beurteilung der Klassifikation, Prognose und Prädiktion beim Mammakarzinom. Ein kritischer Review zum Hintergrund und klinischen Nutzen
P. Sinn
1   Department of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
,
S. Aulmann
1   Department of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
,
R. Wirtz
2   Stratifyer Molecular Pathology GmbH, Köln
,
S. Schott
3   Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
,
F. Marmé
3   Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
,
Z. Varga
4   Institute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
,
A. Lebeau
5   Dept. of Pathology, University Medical Canter Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
H. Kreipe
6   Institute of Pathology, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover
,
A. Schneeweiss
7   National Center of Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 28 July 2013
revised 24 August 2013

accepted 25 August 2013

Publication Date:
11 October 2013 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Gene signatures which are based on multigene profiling assays have been developed for the purpose to better define the prognosis and prediction of therapy results in early-stage breast cancer. These assays were designed to be more specific than conventional clinico-pathologic parameters in the selection of patients for (neo-)adjuvant treatment and in effect help to avoid unnecessary cytotoxic treatment. In this review we describe molecular risk scores, for which tests are commercially available (PAM50®, MammaTyper®, MammaPrint®, Oncotype DX®, Endopredict®, Genomic Grade Index®) and IHC risk scores (Mammostrat® and IHC4), and discuss the current evidence of their clinical use.

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten Jahren wurden eine Reihe verschiedener Gensignaturen, die auf Multigenassays basieren, für die Abschätzung der Prognose und Prädiktion beim frühen Mammakarzinom entwickelt. Die Zielsetzung dieser Assays ist die Verbesserung der Spezifität gegenüber konventionellen klinisch-pathologischen Parametern für die Therapieplanung, speziell für die Optimierung der Selektion von Patienten für die (neo-)adjuvante Therapie und zur Vermeidung überflüssiger zytotoxischer Therapien. In diesem Review beschreiben wir wichtige molekulare Risikoscores, für die Tests kommerziell angeboten werden (PAM50®, MammaTyper®, MammaPrint®, Oncotype DX®, Endopredict®, Genomic Grade Index®), sowie vergleichbare immunhistochemische (IHC) Risikoscores (Mammostrat®, IHC4), und diskutieren die wissenschaftliche Evidenz dieser Tests und deren klinischen Anwendungsbereich.

Key words

breast cancer - multigene assays - prognosis

Schlüsselwörter

Mammakarzinom - Multigenassays - Prognose
 

  • References

  • 1 Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al. Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1736-1747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012; 379: 432-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kreipe HH, Ahrens P, Christgen M et al. Jenseits von Staging, Typing und Grading. Herausforderungen und Perspektiven fur die Tumorpathologie der Mamma. Pathologe 2010; 31: 54-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012; 490: 61-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Weigelt B, Baehner FL, Reis-Filho JS. The contribution of gene expression profiling to breast cancer classification, prognostication and prediction: a retrospective of the last decade. J Pathol 2010; 220: 263-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest 2011; 121: 2750-2767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406: 747-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001; 98: 10869-10874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sotiriou C, Pusztai L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 790-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bastien RR, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ebbert MT et al. PAM50 breast cancer subtyping by RT-qPCR and concordance with standard clinical molecular markers. BMC Med Genomics 2012; 5: 44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Weigelt B, Horlings HM, Kreike B et al. Refinement of breast cancer classification by molecular characterization of histological special types. J Pathol 2008; 216: 141-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cheang MC, Voduc KD, Tu D et al. Responsiveness of intrinsic subtypes to adjuvant anthracycline substitution in the NCIC.CTG MA.5 randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 2402-2412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1160-1167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Reis PP, Waldron L, Goswami RS et al. mRNA transcript quantification in archival samples using multiplexed, color-coded probes. BMC Biotechnol 2011; 11: 46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Perou CM, Parker JS, Prat A et al. Clinical implementation of the intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 718-719 author reply 720-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chia SK, Bramwell VH, Tu D et al. A 50-gene intrinsic subtype classifier for prognosis and prediction of benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 4465-4472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kelly CM, Bernard PS, Krishnamurthy S et al. Agreement in risk prediction between the 21-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX(R)) and the PAM50 breast cancer intrinsic Classifier in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Oncologist 2012; 17: 492-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nguyen B, Cusumano PG, Deck K et al. Comparison of molecular subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to local clinical subtyping in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 3257-3263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Varga Z, Diebold J, Dommann-Scherrer C et al. How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e37379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fountzilas G, Valavanis C, Kotoula V et al. HER2 and TOP2A in high-risk early breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant epirubicin-based dose-dense sequential chemotherapy. J Transl Med 2012; 10: 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Noske A, Loibl S, Darb-Esfahani S et al. Comparison of different approaches for assessment of HER2 expression on protein and mRNA level: prediction of chemotherapy response in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio trial (NCT00544765). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 126: 109-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim C, Tang G, Pogue-Geile KL et al. Estrogen receptor (ESR1) mRNA expression and benefit from tamoxifen in the treatment and prevention of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4160-4167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Goldhirsch A, Ingle J, Gelber R et al. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1319-1329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Wirapati P et al. Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 5158-5165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: R65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 vanʼt Veer L, Dai H, van de Vijver M et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002; 415: 530-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tian S, Roepman P, vanʼt Veer LJ et al. Biological functions of the genes in the mammaprint breast cancer profile reflect the hallmarks of cancer. Biomark Insights 2010; 5: 129-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 van de Vijver M, He Y, vanʼt Veer L et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1999-2009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Buyse M, Loi S, vanʼt Veer L et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 1183-1192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R et al. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 117: 483-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wittner BS, Sgroi DC, Ryan PD et al. Analysis of the MammaPrint breast cancer assay in a predominantly postmenopausal cohort. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 2988-2993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mook S, Schmidt MK, Viale G et al. The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1–3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 116: 295-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mook S, Schmidt MK, Weigelt B et al. The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 717-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Knauer M, Mook S, Rutgers EJ et al. The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 120: 655-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Esteban J, Baker J, Cronin M et al. Tumor Gene Expression and Prognosis in Breast Cancer: Multi-Gene RT-PCR Assay of Paraffin-embedded Tissue. Abstract #3416. Chicago, IL: ASCO Annual Meeting; 2003
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Cobleigh MA, Bitterman P, Baker J et al. Tumor Gene Expression predicts distant disease-free Survival (DDFS) in Breast Cancer Patients with 10 or more positive Nodes: high throughput RT-PCR Assay of Paraffin-embedded Tumor Tissues. Abstract #3466. Chicago, IL: ASCO Annual Meeting; 2003
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al. Multi-gene RT-PCR assay for predicting recurrence in node negative breast cancer patients – NSABP studies B-20 and B-14. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 82 (Suppl.) S10-S11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2817-2826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3726-3734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 55-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Sparano JA, Paik S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 721-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Markopoulos C. Overview of the use of Oncotype DX((R)) as an additional treatment decision tool in early breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2013; 13: 179-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Eiermann W, Rezai M, Kummel S et al. The 21-gene recurrence score assay impacts adjuvant therapy recommendations for ER-positive, node-negative and node-positive early breast cancer resulting in a risk-adapted change in chemotherapy use. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 618-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hornberger J, Chien R, Krebs K et al. US insurance programʼs experience with a multigene assay for early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 2011; 7: e38s-e45s
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 6012-6020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Denkert C, Kronenwett R, Schlake W et al. Decentral gene expression analysis for ER+/Her2− breast cancer: results of a proficiency testing program for the EndoPredict assay. Virchows Arch 2012; 460: 251-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Dubsky PC, Jakesz R, Mlineritsch B et al. Tamoxifen and anastrozole as a sequencing strategy: a randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer from the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 722-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Dubsky P, Filipits M, Jakesz R et al. EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 640-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Muller BM, Keil E, Lehmann A et al. The EndoPredict gene-expression assay in clinical practice – performance and impact on clinical decisions. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e68252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 5222-5232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with Oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 2783-2790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Martin M, Prat A, Rodriguez-Lescure A et al. PAM50 proliferation score as a predictor of weekly paclitaxel benefit in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 138: 457-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3153-3158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F et al. Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12: 207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Paradiso A, Ellis IO, Zito FA et al. Short- and long-term effects of a training session on pathologistsʼ performance: the INQAT experience for histological grading in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 2009; 62: 279-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 262-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C et al. Definition of clinically distinct molecular subtypes in estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas through genomic grade. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1239-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Desmedt C, Giobbie-Hurder A, Neven P et al. The Gene expression Grade Index: a potential predictor of relapse for endocrine-treated breast cancer patients in the BIG 1-98 trial. BMC Med Genomics 2009; 2: 40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Naoi Y, Kishi K, Tanei T et al. High genomic grade index associated with poor prognosis for lymph node-negative and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers and with good response to chemotherapy. Cancer 2011; 117: 472-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Liedtke C, Hatzis C, Symmans WF et al. Genomic grade index is associated with response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3185-3191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Toussaint J, Sieuwerts AM, Haibe-Kains B et al. Improvement of the clinical applicability of the Genomic Grade Index through a qRT-PCR test performed on frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. BMC Genomics 2009; 10: 424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S et al. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4273-4278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Barton S, Zabaglo L, AʼHern R et al. Assessment of the contribution of the IHC4+C score to decision making in clinical practice in early breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2012; 106: 1760-1765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Ring BZ, Seitz RS, Beck R et al. Novel prognostic immunohistochemical biomarker panel for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3039-3047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Ross DT, Kim CY, Tang G et al. Chemosensitivity and stratification by a five monoclonal antibody immunohistochemistry test in the NSABP B14 and B20 trials. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 6602-6609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Bartlett JM, Bloom KJ, Piper T et al. Mammostrat as an immunohistochemical multigene assay for prediction of early relapse risk in the tamoxifen versus exemestane adjuvant multicenter trial pathology study. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4477-4484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Weigelt B, Pusztai L, Ashworth A et al. Challenges translating breast cancer gene signatures into the clinic. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9: 58-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Weigelt B, Reis-Filho JS. Molecular profiling currently offers no more than tumour morphology and basic immunohistochemistry. Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12 (Suppl. 04) S5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Braun L, Mietzsch F, Seibold P et al. Intrinsic breast cancer subtypes defined by estrogen receptor signalling-prognostic relevance of progesterone receptor loss. Mod Pathol 2013; DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.60.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Elsawaf Z, Sinn HP, Rom J et al. Biological subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer are associated with distinct morphological changes and clinical behaviour. Breast 2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.05.012.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Weigelt B, Reis-Filho JS. Histological and molecular types of breast cancer: is there a unifying taxonomy?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009; 6: 718-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Combinatorial biomarker expression in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 120: 293-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1446-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L et al. Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 560-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Varga Z, Sinn P, Fritzsche F et al. Comparison of EndoPredict and Oncotype DX test results in hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e58483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Prat A, Parker JS, Fan C et al. Concordance among gene expression-based predictors for ER-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. Ann Oncol 2012; 23: 2866-2873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995; 26: 873-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Gudlaugsson E, Skaland I, Janssen EA et al. Comparison of the effect of different techniques for measurement of Ki67 proliferation on reproducibility and prognosis prediction accuracy in breast cancer. Histopathology 2012; 61: 1134-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Weigelt B, Mackay A, AʼHern R et al. Breast cancer molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 339-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Geyer FC, Marchio C, Reis-Filho JS. The role of molecular analysis in breast cancer. Pathology 2009; 41: 77-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Chang JC, Makris A, Gutierrez MC et al. Gene expression patterns in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded core biopsies predict docetaxel chemosensitivity in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 108: 233-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Esteva F, Sahin A, Cristofanilli M et al. Prognostic role of a multigene reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in patients with node-negative breast cancer not receiving adjuvant systemic therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 3315-3319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Denkert C, Loibl S, Kronenwett R et al. RNA-based determination of ESR1 and HER2 expression and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 632-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Symmans WF, Hatzis C, Sotiriou C et al. Genomic index of sensitivity to endocrine therapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4111-4119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Bhargava R, Dabbs DJ. Oncotype DX test on unequivocally HER2-positive cases: potential for harm. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 570-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Azim Jr. HA, Michiels S, Zagouri F et al. Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: the IMPAKT 2012 Working Group consensus statement. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 647-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Scharl A. Mammakarzinom-Therapie: Der routinemäßige Einsatz von Gentests ist derzeit nicht sinnvoll. Dtsch Arztebl International 2012; 109: 2085-2086
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Cardoso F, vanʼt Veer L, Rutgers E et al. Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 729-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar