Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Genomic comparison of paired primary breast carcinomas and lymph node macrometastases using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test

  • Preclinical study
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Adjuvant therapy decisions may in part be based on results of Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® (RS) testing of primary tumors. When necessary, lymph node metastases may be considered as a surrogate. Here we evaluate the concordance in gene expression between primary breast cancers and synchronous lymph node metastases, based on results from quantitative RT-PCR-based RS testing between matched primary tumors and synchronous nodal metastases.

Methods

This retrospective, exploratory study included patients (≥ 18 years old) treated at our center (2005–2009) who had ER+ , HER2-negative invasive breast cancer and synchronous nodal metastases with available tumor blocks from both sites. Paired tissue blocks underwent RS testing, and RS and single-gene results for ER, PR, and HER2 were explored between paired samples.

Results

A wide distribution of RS results in tumors and in synchronous nodal metastases were modestly correlated between 84 paired samples analyzed (Pearson correlation 0.69 [95% CI 0.55–0.78]). Overall concordance in RS group classification between samples was 63%. ER, PR, and HER2 by RT-PCR between the primary tumor and lymph node were also modestly correlated (Pearson correlation [95% CI] 0.64 [0.50–0.75], 0.64 [0.49–0.75], and 0.51 [0.33–0.65], respectively). Categorical concordance (positive or negative) was 100% for ER, 77% for PR, and 100% for HER2.

Conclusions

There is modest correlation in continuous gene expression, as measured by the RS and single-gene results for ER, PR, and HER2 between paired primary tumors and synchronous nodal metastases. RS testing for ER+ breast cancer should continue to be based on analysis of primary tumors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASCO:

American Society of Clinical Oncology

CI:

Confidence interval

ER:

Estrogen receptor

FISH:

Fluorescent in situ hybridization

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

IHC:

Immunohistochemistry

PR:

Progesterone receptor

RS:

Recurrence Score®

RT-PCR:

Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction

transATAC:

Translational study of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 67(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. NCI SEER cancer statistics factsheets: breast cancer. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2017

  3. Fayanju OM, Jeffe DB, Margenthaler JA (2013) Occult primary breast cancer at a comprehensive cancer center. J Surg Res 185(2):684–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.06.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Walker GV, Smith GL, Perkins GH, Oh JL, Woodward W, Yu TK, Hunt KK, Hoffman K, Strom EA, Buchholz TA (2010) Population-based analysis of occult primary breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer 116(17):4000–4006. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25197

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Evans V, Godwin J, Gray R, McGale P, Peto R, Wang Y, Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, Mandelblatt JS, Yakovlev AY, Habbema JD, Feuer EJ, Cancer I, Surveillance Modeling Network C (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(17):1784–1792. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2017) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2018

  8. No authors listed (2000) Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. NIH Consens Statement 17 (4):1-35

  9. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Walker MG, Watson D, Park T, Hiller W, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Bryant J, Wolmark N (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(27):2817–2826. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J, Costantino JP, Geyer CE, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(23):3726–3734. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7985

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT, Ravdin P, Bugarini R, Baehner FL, Davidson NE, Sledge GW, Winer EP, Hudis C, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Pritchard KI, Shepherd L, Gralow JR, Yoshizawa C, Allred DC, Osborne CK, Hayes DF, Breast Cancer Intergroup of North A (2010) 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 11(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70314-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, Forbes J, Mallon EA, Salter J, Quinn E, Dunbier A, Baum M, Buzdar A, Howell A, Bugarini R, Baehner FL, Shak S (2010) Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 28(11):1829–1834. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.4798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Badve SS, Baehner FL, Gray RP, Childs BH, Maddala T, Liu ML, Rowley SC, Shak S, Perez EA, Shulman LJ, Martino S, Davidson NE, Sledge GW, Goldstein LJ, Sparano JA (2008) Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol 26(15):2473–2481. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.13.6424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baehner FL, Achacoso N, Maddala T, Shak S, Quesenberry CP Jr, Goldstein LC, Gown AM, Habel LA (2010) Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 assessment in a case-control study: comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction performed by central laboratories. J Clin Oncol 28(28):4300–4306. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.8211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kroigard AB, Larsen MJ, Thomassen M, Kruse TA (2016) Molecular concordance between primary breast cancer and matched metastases. Breast J 22(4):420–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marusyk A, Polyak K (2010) Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences. Biochim Biophys Acta 1:105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2009.11.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ellsworth RE, Blackburn HL, Shriver CD, Soon-Shiong P, Ellsworth DL (2017) Molecular heterogeneity in breast cancer: state of the science and implications for patient care. Semin Cell Dev Biol 64:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.08.025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lindstrom LS, Karlsson E, Wilking UM, Johansson U, Hartman J, Lidbrink EK, Hatschek T, Skoog L, Bergh J (2012) Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2601–2608. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Amir E, Miller N, Geddie W, Freedman O, Kassam F, Simmons C, Oldfield M, Dranitsaris G, Tomlinson G, Laupacis A, Tannock IF, Clemons M (2012) Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(6):587–592. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.5232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rugo HS, Rumble RB, Macrae E, Barton DL, Connolly HK, Dickler MN, Fallowfield L, Fowble B, Ingle JN, Jahanzeb M, Johnston SR, Korde LA, Khatcheressian JL, Mehta RS, Muss HB, Burstein HJ (2016) Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol 34(25):3069–3103. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Agthoven T, Timmermans M, Dorssers LC, Henzen-Logmans SC (1995) Expression of estrogen, progesterone and epidermal growth factor receptors in primary and metastatic breast cancer. Int J Cancer 63(6):790–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ellsworth RE, Seebach J, Field LA, Heckman C, Kane J, Hooke JA, Love B, Shriver CD (2009) A gene expression signature that defines breast cancer metastases. Clin Exp Metastasis 26(3):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-008-9232-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hao X, Sun B, Hu L, Lahdesmaki H, Dunmire V, Feng Y, Zhang SW, Wang H, Wu C, Wang H, Fuller GN, Symmans WF, Shmulevich I, Zhang W (2004) Differential gene and protein expression in primary breast malignancies and their lymph node metastases as revealed by combined cDNA microarray and tissue microarray analysis. Cancer 100(6):1110–1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20095

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ba JL, Liu CG, Jin F (2014) Alterations in hormonal receptor expression and HER2 status between primary breast tumors and paired nodal metastases: discordance rates and prognosis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(21):9233–9239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Falck AK, Ferno M, Bendahl PO, Ryden L (2010) Does analysis of biomarkers in tumor cells in lymph node metastases give additional prognostic information in primary breast cancer? World J Surg 34(7):1434–1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0499-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Aitken SJ, Thomas JS, Langdon SP, Harrison DJ, Faratian D (2010) Quantitative analysis of changes in ER, PR and HER2 expression in primary breast cancer and paired nodal metastases. Ann Oncol 21(6):1254–1261. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dabbs DJ, Klein ME, Mohsin SK, Tubbs RR, Shuai Y, Bhargava R (2011) High false-negative rate of HER2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of the Oncotype DX test: an independent quality assurance study. J Clin Oncol 29(32):4279–4285. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.34.7963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, Allred DC, Bartlett JM, Bilous M, Fitzgibbons P, Hanna W, Jenkins RB, Mangu PB, Paik S, Perez EA, Press MF, Spears PA, Vance GH, Viale G, Hayes DF, American Society of Clinical O, College of American P (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.50.9984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Anna Lau, PhD for editorial support.

Funding

Genomic Health provided a research grant for the analysis of the specimens and provided editorial support of manuscript development. The preparation of this study was supported in part by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, 10 Nathan D Perlman Pl, New York, NY, 10003, USA

    Susan K. Boolbol

  2. Department of Pathology, Lenox Hill Hospital, 100 East 77th St, New York, NY, 10075, USA

    Manju Harshan

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, 10 Nathan D Perlman Pl, New York, NY, 10003, USA

    Manjeet Chadha

  4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Laurie Kirstein

  5. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Jean-Marc Cohen

  6. Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, 10 Nathan D Perlman Pl, New York, NY, 10003, USA

    Paula Klein & Stephen Malamud

  7. Genomic Health, Inc., 301 Penobscot Drive, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA

    Joseph Anderson, Deborah Davison, Debbie M. Jakubowski & Frederick L. Baehner

Authors
  1. Susan K. Boolbol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manju Harshan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manjeet Chadha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laurie Kirstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jean-Marc Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paula Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joseph Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Deborah Davison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Debbie M. Jakubowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Frederick L. Baehner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stephen Malamud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SKB: made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, and analysis and interpretation of data; involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; gave final approval of the version to be published; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. MH: involved in acquisition of data and interpretation of data; gave final approval of the version to be published. MC: involved in acquisition of data; gave final approval of the version to be published. LK: involved in acquisition of data; gave final approval of the version to be published. JMC: involved in acquisition of data and interpretation of data; gave final approval of the version to be published. PK: involved in acquisition of data and interpretation of data; gave final approval of the version to be published. JA: made substantial contributions to design, acquisition of data, and interpretation of data; gave final approval of the version to be published. DD: involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content; gave final approval of the version to be published. DMJ: made substantial contributions to data analysis and interpretation of data; involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content; gave final approval of the version to be published. FLB: involved in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content; gave final approval of the version to be published. SM: made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, and analysis and interpretation of data; involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; gave final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick L. Baehner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

SKB has served on the speaker’s bureau for Genomic Health. JA was employed at Genomic Health at the time the study occurred. DD, DMJ, and FLB are currently employed at and own stock in Genomic Health. SM has served on the speaker’s bureau for and owns stock in Genomic Health. MH, MC, LK, JMC, and PK declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee and appropriate Scientific Review Committees prior to initiation.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boolbol, S.K., Harshan, M., Chadha, M. et al. Genomic comparison of paired primary breast carcinomas and lymph node macrometastases using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test. Breast Cancer Res Treat 177, 611–618 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05346-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05346-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation