Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

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

Abstract

The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint™) is a prognostic tool used to guide adjuvant treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to assess its value to predict chemosensitivity in the neoadjuvant setting. We obtained the 70-gene profile of stage II–III patients prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and classified the prognosis-signatures. Pathological complete remission (pCR) was used to measure chemosensitivity. Among 167 patients, 144 (86%) were having a poor and 23 (14%) a good prognosis-signature. None of the good prognosis-signature patients achieved a pCR (0/23), whereas 29/144 patients (20%) in the poor prognosis-signature group did (P = 0.015). All triple-negative tumors (n = 38) had a poor prognosis-signature. Within the non triple-negative subgroup, the response of the primary tumor remained associated with the classification of the prognosis-signature (P = 0.023). A pCR is unlikely to be achieved in tumors that have a good prognosis-signature. Tumors with a poor prognosis-signature are more sensitive to chemotherapy.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. van ‘t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, Peterse HL, van der Kooy K, Marton MJ, Witteveen AT, Schreiber GJ, Kerkhoven RM, Roberts C, Linsley PS, Bernards R, Friend SH (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R, Wesseling J, Nuyten DS, van Krimpen C, Meijers C, de Graaf PW, Bos MM, Hart AA, Rutgers EJ, Peterse JL, Halfwerk H, de Groot R, Pronk A, Floore AN, Glas AM, van’t Veer LJ, van de Vijver MJ (2008) Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. doi:10.1007/s10549-008-0191-2

  4. Buyse M, Loi S, Van’t Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, d’Assignies MS, Bergh J, Lidereau R, Ellis P, Harris A, Bogaerts J, Therasse P, Floore A, Amakrane M, Piette F, Rutgers E, Sotiriou C, Cardoso F, Piccart MJ (2006) Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1183–1192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mook S, Schmidt MK, Viale G, Pruneri G, Eekhout I, Floore A, Glas AM, Bogaerts J, Cardoso F, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Rutgers ET, van’t Veer LJ (2008) 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. doi:10.1007/s10549-008-0130-2

  6. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, Schreiber GJ, Peterse JL, Roberts C, Marton MJ, Parrish M, Atsma D, Witteveen A, Glas A, Delahaye L, van der Velde T, Bartelink H, Rodenhuis S, Rutgers ET, Friend SH, Bernards R (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999–2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cardoso F, Van’t Veer L, Rutgers E, Loi S, Mook S, Piccart-Gebhart MJ (2008) Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 26:729–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hannemann J, Oosterkamp HM, Bosch CA, Velds A, Wessels LF, Loo C, Rutgers EJ, Rodenhuis S, van de Vijver MJ (2005) Changes in gene expression associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:3331–3342

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) 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 19:403–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hauser-Kronberger C, Dandachi N (2004) Comparison of chromogenic in situ hybridization with other methodologies for HER2 status assessment in breast cancer. J Mol Histol 35:647–653

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Livingston R, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Carpenter J, Hurd D, Holland JF, Smith BL, Sartor CI, Leung EH, Abrams J, Schilsky RL, Muss HB, Norton L (2003) Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 21:1431–1439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lebowitz PF, Eng-Wong J, Swain SM, Berman A, Merino MJ, Chow CK, Venzon D, Zia F, Danforth D, Liu E, Zujewski J (2004) A phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel and capecitabine for locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 10:6764–6769

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Shaughnessy JA, Blum JL (2006) Capecitabine/taxane combination therapy: evolving clinical utility in breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 7:42–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burris HIII, Yardley D, Jones S, Houston G, Broome C, Thompson D, Greco FA, White M, Hainsworth J (2004) Phase II trial of trastuzumab followed by weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:1621–1629

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Perez EA, Suman VJ, Rowland KM, Ingle JN, Salim M, Loprinzi CL, Flynn PJ, Mailliard JA, Kardinal CG, Krook JE, Thrower AR, Visscher DW, Jenkins RB (2005) Two concurrent phase II trials of paclitaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab (weekly or every-3-week schedule) as first-line therapy in women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer: NCCTG study 983252. Clin Breast Cancer 6:425–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, Rodenhuis S, van de Vijver MJ, Hannemann J, Muller SH, Peeters MJ, Gilhuijs KG (2008) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prediction of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: initial results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1331–1338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weigelt B, Glas AM, Wessels LF, Witteveen AT, Peterse JL, van’t Veer LJ (2003) Gene expression profiles of primary breast tumors maintained in distant metastases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:15901–15905

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Glas AM, Floore A, Delahaye LJ, Witteveen AT, Pover RC, Bakx N, Lahti-Domenici JS, Bruinsma TJ, Warmoes MO, Bernards R, Wessels LF, van’t Veer LJ (2006) Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics 7:278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S, Andre F, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Symmans WF, Meric-Bernstam F, Valero V, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L (2007) Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol 25:2650–2655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL, Vogel VG, Dakhil SR, Tamkus D, King KM, Pajon ER, Wright MJ, Robert J, Paik S, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26:778–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 19:4224–4237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA, Fluge O, Pergamenschikov A, Williams C, Zhu SX, Lonning PE, Borresen-Dale AL, Brown PO, Botstein D (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, Hernandez-Boussard T, Livasy C, Cowan D, Dressler L, Akslen LA, Ragaz J, Gown AM, Gilks CB, van de Rijn M, Perou CM (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:5367–5374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, Ollila DW, Sartor CI, Graham ML, Perou CM (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 13:2329–2334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K, Baker J, Cronin M, Wu J, Mariani G, Rodriguez J, Carcangiu M, Watson D, Valagussa P, Rouzier R, Symmans WF, Ross JS, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L, Shak S (2005) Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7265–7277

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH, Retel VP, van’t Veer LJ, van Dam FS, Karsenberg K, Douma KF, van Tinteren H, Peterse JL, Wesseling J, Wu TS, Atsma D, Rutgers EJ, Brink G, Floore AN, Glas AM, Roumen RM, Bellot FE, van Krimpen C, Rodenhuis S, van de Vijver MJ, Linn SC (2007) Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol 8:1079–1087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, Mercer MB, Hewlett J, Gerson N, Parker HL (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:980–991

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

This study was financially supported by Agendia, the commercial company that markets the 70-gene signature as Mammaprint. L. van ‘t Veer is a shareholder in and (part time) employed by Agendia. A.M. Glas is employed by Agendia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sjoerd Rodenhuis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Straver, M.E., Glas, A.M., Hannemann, J. et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119, 551–558 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0333-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0333-1

Keywords

Navigation