Molecular genetic tests in the prediction of the prognosis of breast cancer

  • F. R. StoddardII
  • A. M. Szasz
  • B. Szekely
  • A.-M. Tokes
  • J. Kulka
Short review


Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease concerning its morphology and behaviour. Until a few years ago, the prognosis of a given breast cancer case was mainly defined based on several parameters included in the pathology report: pTNM, grade, type, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor status and HER-2 status. The risk categories defined in the most recent St. Gallen consensus documents were complemented by the addition of the Ki67 index provisionally as a good marker for prognosis and for the risk of progressive disease. Newer assays are being developed to help augment these standard pathologic markers. The application of emerging molecular techniques in oncology is giving way to a variety of new prognostic and predictive tests designed to help tailor patient-specific treatment algorithms. While a few of these have accumulated sufficient validation to merit their use in the routine work-up of certain cancers, most still need additional studies to validate their roles in patient management. This review gives an overview of the major molecular pathology tests that are currently available for routine diagnostics. We provide information about their development, technical issues, and current and emerging utility as prognostic and/or predictive studies. Additionally, we discuss tests that are currently under investigation requiring additional validation.


Breast cancer Prognosis Prediction Diagnostics 


  1. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology, 19(5): 403–410, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ravdin PM, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 19(4): 980–991, 2001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Galea MH, et al. The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 22(3): 207–219, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Thorpe SM, et al. Prognostic value of steroid hormone receptors: multivariate analysis of systemically untreated patients with node negative primary breast cancer. Cancer Res, 47(22): 6126–6133, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. McGuire WL. Estrogen receptor versus nuclear grade as prognostic factors in axillary node negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 6(7): 1071–1072, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Slamon DJ, et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the ERBB2 oncogene. Science, 235: 177–181, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Slamon DJ, et al. Studies of the ERBB2 proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science, 244: 707–712, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Perou CM, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature, 406: 747–752, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mullins M, et al. Agreement in breast cancer classification between microarray and quantitative reverse transcription PCR from fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. Clin Chem, 53(7): 1273–1279, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nielsen TO, 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, 16(21): 5222–5232, 2010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Paik S, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 351(27): 2817–2826, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Paik S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 24(23): 3726–3734, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sotiriou C, et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst, 98(4): 262–272, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liedtke C, et al. Genomic grade index is associated with response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 27(19): 3185–3191, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang Y, et al. Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet, 365(9460): 671–679, 2005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Tutt A, et al. Risk estimation of distant metastasis in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients using an RT-PCR based prognostic expression signature. BMC Cancer, 8(1): 339, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Konsti J, et al. Development and evaluation of a virtual microscopy application for automated assessment of Ki-67 expression in breast cancer. BMC Clin Pathol, 11(1): 3, 2011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gasparri F, et al. Quantification of the proliferation index of human dermal fibroblast cultures with the ArrayScan high-content screening reader. J Biomol Screen, 9(3): 232–243, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chang HY, et al. Gene expression signature of fibroblast serum response predicts human cancer progression: similarities between tumors and wounds. PLoS Biol, 2(2): e7, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu R, et al. The prognostic role of a gene signature from tumorigenic breast-cancer cells. N Engl J Med, 356(3): 217–226, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finak G, et al. Stromal gene expression predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer. Nat Med, 14(5): 518–527, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Szasz AM, et al. A focused, PCR based gene expression signature to refine grade in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer, 8(3): 226s, 2010Google Scholar
  23. Ayers M, et al. Gene expression profiles predict complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 22(12): 2284–2293, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Narod S, et al. Increasing incidence of breast cancer in family with BRCA1 mutation. Lancet, 341(8852): 1101–1102, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis LM, et al. Amplification patterns of three genomic regions predict distant recurrence in breast carcinoma. J Mol Diagn, 9(3): 327–336, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van 't Veer LJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature, 415(6871): 530–536, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Toussaint J, 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, 10: 424, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma XJ, et al. A five-gene molecular grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res, 14(9): 2601–2608, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Aleskandarany M, et al. MIB1/Ki-67 labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 127(3): 591–9Google Scholar
  30. Ring BZ, et al. Novel prognostic immunohistochemical biomarker panel for estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 24(19): 3039–3047, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. R. StoddardII
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. M. Szasz
    • 1
  • B. Szekely
    • 1
  • A.-M. Tokes
    • 1
  • J. Kulka
    • 1
  1. 1.2nd Department of PathologySemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryDrexel University College of MedicinePhiladelphia, PAUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineDrexel University College of MedicinePhiladelphia, PAUSA

Personalised recommendations