The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients that benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy
- 736 Downloads
Purpose To assess the benefit from adjuvant systemic tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer risk groups identified by the previously established prognostic 76-gene signature. Methods In 300 lymph node-negative (LNN), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients (136 treated with adjuvant tamoxifen, 164 having received no systemic adjuvant therapy), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a function of the 76-gene signature was determined in a multicenter fashion. Results In 136 tamoxifen-treated patients, the 76-gene signature identified a group of patients with a poor prognosis [hazard ratio (HR), 4.62; P = 0.0248]. These patients showed a 12.3% absolute benefit of tamoxifen in 10-year DMFS (HR, 0.52; P = 0.0318) compared with untreated high-risk patients. This represented a 71% increase in relative benefit compared with the 7.2% absolute benefit observed for all 300 patients without using the gene signature. In the low-risk group there was no significant 10-year DMFS benefit of tamoxifen. Conclusions The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients who benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Although we did not study the value of chemotherapy in this study, low-risk patients identified by the 76-gene signature have a prognosis good enough that chemotherapy would be difficult to justify. The prognosis of these patients is sufficiently good, in fact, that a disease-free benefit for tamoxifen therapy is difficult to prove, though benefits in terms of loco-regional relapse and a reduction in risk for contralateral breast cancer might justify hormonal therapy in these patients.
KeywordsBreast cancer Gene signature Prognosis Tamoxifen benefit
We thank Mieke Timmermans, Anita Trapman-Jansen, Vanja de Weerd and Wendy van der Smissen for technical assistance, and Marion Meijer-van Gelder for handling of the clinical data. This study was supported in part by The Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
- 2.Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, DeCillis A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N et al (1996) Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1529–1542. doi: 10.1093/jnci/88.21.1529 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J, Anderson S, Dignam J, Fisher ER et al (2004) Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials. Lancet 364:858–868. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16981-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Hess KR, Anderson K, Symmans WF, Valero V, Ibrahim N, Mejia JA et al (2006) Pharmacogenomic predictor of sensitivity to preoperative chemotherapy with paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:4236–4244. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.6861 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Desmedt C, Piette F, Loi S, Wang Y, Lallemand F, Haibe-Kains B et al (2007) Strong time dependence of the 76-gene prognostic signature for node-negative breast cancer patients in the TRANSBIG multicenter independent validation series. Clin Cancer Res 13:3207–3214. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2765 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Harvell D, Spoelstra N, Singh M, McManaman J, Finlayson C, Phang T, et al (2008) Molecular signatures of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer: characteristics of response or intrinsic resistance. Breast Cancer Res Treat. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-9897-4 press)
- 25.Harbeck N, Kates RE, Look MP, Meijer-Van Gelder ME, Klijn JG, Kruger A et al (2002) 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 62:4617–4622PubMedGoogle Scholar