Laboratory-Clinic InterfaceMolecular and protein markers for clinical decision making in breast cancer: Today and tomorrow
Introduction
Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading malignancies and causes of cancer death for women [1], [2]. The significant survival improvement compared to the 1990’s correlates with early diagnosis and adjuvant therapy improvement. A major step has been to define BC diversity and to accurately categorize patient subpopulations [3], [4]. Genomic information can be combined with clinicopathological characteristics to estimate recurrence risk (prognostic value) and predict therapy efficacy (predictive value). Identifying high-risk patients for recurrence and administering optimal therapies but avoiding overtreatment are major issues in BC management as therapy resistance and metastasis processes need to be effectively targeted for improvement of survival [5].
Current BC classification and assessment remain strongly based on clinicopathological criteria, including patient age, tumor size, lymph node invasion, histological type, and grade [6]. Histological characterization is still evolving, driven by development of targeted therapies, including endocrine and anti-HER2 therapies, and by proliferation index evaluation. Routine immunohistochemistry (IHC) is performed for estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 overexpression, and recently Ki67.
Besides individual mutation analysis, gene expression microarrays have allowed researchers to perform simultaneous expression analyses of thousands of genes in a single experiment to create molecular tumor profiles. In 2000, Perou and colleagues published the first paper classifying BC into intrinsic subtypes based on gene expression profiling [7], [8]. Progressively, new classifications have emerged defining now 6 subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, HER2-enriched, basal-like, normal breast-like, and more recently, the claudin-low or mesenchymal-like subtype [9], [10]. Although the classically called triple negative tumors are mainly represented among the basal-like subtype, they do not always belong to this subtype and inversely, this subtype does not contain only triple negative tumors [11], [12]. Recently, Lehmann and colleagues suggested to further molecularly subdivide triple negative BC into six subtypes (2 basal-like, an immunomodulatory, a mesenchymal, a mesenchymal stem-like, and a luminal androgen receptor subtype). The authors even showed potential therapeutic consequences. Yet, at the moment, these subtypes have not been validated for clinical routine use [13]. These new intrinsic classifications are in permanent evolution with more possible subtypes in the near future [4], [13], [14].
Nonetheless, introduction of molecular subtypes opened new ways for clinicians to classify, diagnose and treat BC [9], [14], [15]. Moreover, new signaling pathway identification for each subtype has proven to be useful for drug discovery and for identification of new molecular markers [3].
At primary diagnosis, approximately 60% of patients with invasive BC are node-negative, with 94% of these expected to have no distant metastasis at ten years if treated by locoregional and adjuvant systemic therapy (www.tumoRregister-muenchen.de). Without adjuvant systemic therapy, the risk of relapse among node-negative patients is considerably higher [16]. About 80% of these patients, i.e. those who have ER/PR positive disease, will receive adjuvant endocrine therapy. For patients with HER2-positive disease (about 15%), additional chemotherapy and targeted therapy are recommended. The HER2-negative, hormone receptor positive population can be intrinsically divided in subpopulations with low, average and high risks of recurrence. Adjuvant therapy, either endocrine or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy, should be decided accordingly. Yet risk stratification based on only clinic-pathological parameters may be misleading and cause under- or overtreatment. Since 2007, international guidelines (e.g., St. Gallen, ASCO, AGO) have recommended to additionally use validated protein or gene expression tests reflecting the intrinsic tumor characteristics to improve the clinical risk stratification [17], [18].
Section snippets
Prognostic and predictive tests for early breast cancer
The main goal in development of prognostic and predictive markers is to develop quality assured (QA) certified tests that can be routinely used, at acceptable cost for all patients [19]. Moreover, clinicians should easily be able to determine which test is suitable for each individual patient. Ultimately, clinicians will combine new and established markers to:
- -
optimize cancer diagnosis
- -
orientate therapy choice
- -
support patient follow-up.
To reach these goals, thorough marker development according to
Comparisons of several prognostic tests in early breast cancer
We focused this review on the 2 protein and 6 molecular assays we considered the most advanced regarding evaluation of their clinical utility. The major role of these markers is the treatment decision making regarding adjuvant therapy. Thus, we did not emphasize recent hypothesis-generating data related to the impact of the signatures in the neoadjuvant therapies. Nonetheless, other protein markers and signatures are already quite advanced in their development, even marketed, based on
MINDACT trial
The prospective validation of the Mammaprint® assay, as a prognostic tool to improve risk assessment and treatment decision making for eBC, is ongoing with the MINDACT trial. The TRANSBIG consortium launched this prospective, phase III randomized, multicentric clinical trial, called MINDACT (Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy) in 2006. The Mammaprint® assay is assessed in parallel with the more conventional Adjuvant! Online tool for assigning adjuvant chemotherapy to
Decision impact studies
Prospective observational decision support studies have been performed worldwide for several of the multigene assays. Using Oncotype DX® (n = 379), treatment decisions changed in about a third of patients with 33% fewer patients actually receiving chemotherapy than originally planned. Patients’ decisional conflict score improved and physicians’ confidence increased [98]. From a healthcare payer perspective, costs were lower by about 561€ for Oncotype DX® vs. standard of care [99]. Also for
Discussion
The need to avoid over- and undertreatment in the curative adjuvant setting has motivated the search for efficient prognostic and predictive markers in eBC over the last two decades. Of the numerous tests evaluated at the moment, only very few are so far suitable for clinical use because of their technical and clinical validity. The possibility to combine determination of already validated protein markers to clinicopathological criteria also appears as a safe strategy to use.
The need for tumor
Conclusion
Protein and molecular tests to answer specific clinical questions are still relatively new and have introduced substantial challenges for clinicians. In particular, their clinical validity, technical reproducibility, and reliability which are prerequisites for diagnostic and/or predictive assays in patient management need to be addressed quickly. Technical ease and price will be crucial to consider before general implementation of these tests in the clinic. All such tests evaluated in
Conflict of interest statement
NH has received honoraria for lectures from Genomic Health and obtained research funding grant from Genomic Health and NanoString. KS has received honoraria for lectures from NanoString. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest relating to the publication of this manuscript.
References (103)
- et al.
Molecular biology in breast cancer: intrinsic subtypes and signaling pathways
Cancer Treat Rev
(2012) - et al.
Clinical implementation of the intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer
Lancet Oncol
(2010) - et al.
Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer
Mol Oncol
(2011) - et al.
Ten-year analysis of the prospective multicentre Chemo-N0 trial validates American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-recommended biomarkers uPA and PAI-1 for therapy decision making in node-negative breast cancer patients
Eur J Cancer
(2013) - 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) - et al.
UPA and PAI-1 in breast cancer: review of their clinical utility and current validation in the prospective NNBC-3 trial
Adv Clin Chem
(2008) - et al.
Long-term outcome prediction by clinicopathological risk classification algorithms in node-negative breast cancer–comparison between Adjuvant!, St. Gallen, and a novel risk algorithm used in the prospective randomized Node-Negative-Breast Cancer-3 (NNBC-3) trial
Ann Oncol
(2009) - 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) - et al.
The use of gene-expression profiling to better understand the clinical heterogeneity of estrogen receptor positive breast cancers and tamoxifen response
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
(2007) - et al.
Genomic grade adds prognostic value in invasive lobular carcinoma
Ann Oncol
(2013)
Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer
Lancet
A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen
Cancer Cell
The EORTC 10041/BIG 03–04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phase
Eur J Cancer
TAILORx: trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx)
Clin Breast Cancer
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
Monitoring the decrease in breast cancer mortality in Europe
Eur J Cancer Prev
Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control
J Natl Cancer Inst
A new genome-driven integrated classification of breast cancer and its implications
EMBO J
Gene signatures of breast cancer progression and metastasis
Breast Cancer Res
Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up
Histopathology
Molecular portraits of human breast tumours
Nature
Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
Phenotypic and molecular characterization of the claudin-low intrinsic subtype of breast cancer
Breast Cancer Res
Molecular characterization of basal-like and non-basal-like triple-negative breast cancer
Oncologist
Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies
J Clin Invest
Lost in translation? Estrogen receptor status and endocrine responsiveness in breast cancer
J Clin Oncol
Identification of conserved gene expression features between murine mammary carcinoma models and human breast tumors
Genome Biol
American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer
J Clin Oncol
Biomarkers for the clinical management of breast cancer: international perspective
Int J Cancer
Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers
J Natl Cancer Inst
Feasibility of measuring the prognostic factors uPA and PAI-1 in core needle biopsy breast cancer specimens
J Natl Cancer Inst
Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients
J Natl Cancer Inst
Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1
J Natl Cancer Inst
Enhanced benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients classified high-risk according to urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (n = 3424)
Cancer Res
Long-term follow-up confirms prognostic impact of PAI-1 and cathepsin D and L in primary breast cancer
Int J Biol Markers
Prospective evaluation of prognostic factors uPA/PAI-1 in node-negative breast cancer: phase III NNBC3-Europe trial (AGO, GBG, EORTC-PBG) comparing 6xFEC versus 3xFEC/3xDocetaxel
BMC Cancer
Health economic impact of risk group selection according to ASCO-recommended biomarkers uPA/PAI-1 in node-negative primary breast cancer
Breast Cancer Res Treat
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
Risk of recurrence and chemotherapy benefit for patients with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: recurrence score alone and integrated with pathologic and clinical factors
J Clin Oncol
Assessment of the contribution of the IHC4+C score to decision making in clinical practice in early breast cancer
Br J Cancer
Molecular profiling assays in breast cancer: are we ready for prime time?
Oncology (Williston Park)
Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer
Nature
A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer
N Engl J Med
Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst
Prediction of metastasis from low-malignant breast cancer by gene expression profiling
Int J Cancer
Analysis of the MammaPrint breast cancer assay in a predominantly postmenopausal cohort
Clin Cancer Res
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
The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer
Breast Cancer Res Treat
Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test
BMC Genomics
Cited by (80)
Evaluation of Breast Cancer Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes on Ultrasound Images Based on a Novel Multi-Cascade Residual U-Shaped Network
2023, Ultrasound in Medicine and BiologyRecent progress in smartphone-based techniques for food safety and the detection of heavy metal ions in environmental water
2021, ChemosphereCitation Excerpt :Traditional bioanalytical tools for quantitative analysis of various biomarkers are relatively expensive, bulky, difficult to handle, and their results are only accessible after several hours or days, which greatly constrains their application in the field of disease diagnostics (Harbeck et al., 2014; Parkinson et al., 2014).
Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
2019, Annals of OncologyEarly Cancer Detection from Multianalyte Blood Test Results
2019, iScienceCitation Excerpt :Blood and fecal protein markers have also been implicated for colorectal cancer diagnosis (Karl et al., 2008). Multiple markers have also been reported for breast cancers (Harbeck et al., 2014), pancreatic cancers (Takadate et al., 2013), lung cancers (Buszewski et al., 2012), gastric cancers (Rugge et al., 2015), liver cancers (Bertino et al., 2012), esophageal cancers (Napier et al., 2014), and others (Zheng et al., 2005). For a list of well-proved markers, one can refer to the past survey (Polanski and Anderson, 2006).
Controlled release of N-(2-hydroxyphenyl)-2-propylpentanamide nanoencapsulated in polymeric micelles of P123 and F127 tested as anti-proliferative agents in MDA-MB-231 cells
2018, Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology
- 1
Address: Pathologisches Institut, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Thalkirchner Strasse. 36, 80337 München, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0) 89 2180 73 706; fax: +49 (0) 89 2180 73 604.
- 2
Address: Brustzentrum, Universitätsfrauenklinik, Klinikum Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81337 München, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0) 89 7095 7581; fax: +49 (0) 89 7095 7582.
- 3
Address: Tumorbiologisches Labor der Klinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Campus Innenstadt, Klinikum der Universität München, Maistraße 11, 80337 München, Germany. Tel.: + 49 (0) 89 51 60 42 66; fax: + 49 (0) 89 51 60 43 39.