Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 10, pp 3257–3263 | Cite as

Comparison of Molecular Subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to Local Clinical Subtyping in Breast Cancer Patients

  • Bichlien Nguyen
  • Pino G. Cusumano
  • Kenneth Deck
  • Deborah Kerlin
  • Agustin A. Garcia
  • Julie L. Barone
  • Edgardo Rivera
  • Katharine Yao
  • Femke A. de Snoo
  • Jeroen van den Akker
  • Lisette Stork-Sloots
  • Daniele Generali
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

To compare breast cancer subtyping with the three centrally assessed microarray-based assays BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint with locally assessed clinical subtyping using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).

Methods

BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint were all performed on fresh tumor samples. Microarray analysis was performed at Agendia Laboratories, blinded for clinical and pathological data. IHC/FISH assessments were performed according to local practice at each institution; estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) assessments were performed on 132 samples, and Ki-67 on 79 samples.

Results

The concordance between BluePrint and IHC/FISH subtyping was 94 % for the Luminal-type, 95 % for the HER2-type, and 94 % for the Basal-type subgroups. The concordance of BluePrint with subtyping using mRNA single gene readout (TargetPrint) was 96 % for the Luminal-type, 97 % for the HER2-type, and 98 % for the Basal-type subgroups. The concordance for substratification into Luminal A and B using MammaPrint and Ki-67 was 68 %. The concordance between TargetPrint and IHC/FISH was 97 % for ER, 80 % for PR, and 95 % for HER2.

Conclusions

The implementation of multigene assays such as TargetPrint, BluePrint, and MammaPrint may improve the clinical management of breast cancer patients. High discordance between Luminal A and B substratification based on MammaPrint versus locally assessed Ki-67 or grade indicates that chemotherapy decisions should not be based on the basis of Ki-67 readout or tumor grade alone. TargetPrint serves as a second opinion for those local pathology settings where high-quality standardization is harder to maintain.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Supported in part by the Associazione Ricerca in Campo Oncologico (ARCO), Cremona, Italy.

References

  1. 1.
    Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. 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;22:1736–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arihiro K, Umemura S, Kurosumi M, et al. Comparison of evaluations for hormone receptors in breast carcinoma using two manual and three automated immunohistochemical assays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:356–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oyama T, Ishikawa Y, Hayashi M, Arihiro K, Horiguchi J. The effects of fixation, processing and evaluation criteria on immunohistochemical detection of hormone receptors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14:182–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med. 2010;7(5):e1000279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, 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. 2010;16:5222–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sotiriou C, Pusztai L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:790–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krijgsman O, Roepman P, Zwart W, et al. A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133:37–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer, 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1319–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roepman P, Horlings HM, Krijgsman O, et al. Microarray-based determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptor status in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7003–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wesseling J, Cusumano G, Tinterri C, et al. High concordance for microarray based determination of ER, PR and HER2 receptor status and local IHC/FISH assessment worldwide in 827 patients (abstract P5-11-09). Cancer Res. 2011;71(24 Suppl.):543 s.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Viale G, Bogaerts J, Slaets L, et al. High concordance of protein (by IHC), gene (by FISH; HER2 only) and microarray readout (by TargetPrint) of ER/PR/HER2: results from the MINDACT trial (abstract P1-07-06). Cancer Res. 2011;71(24 Suppl.):190 s.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glas AM, Floore A, Delahaye LJ, et al. Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics. 2006;7:278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:736–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gevensleben H, Göhring UJ, Büttner R, et al. Comparison of MammaPrint and TargetPrint results with clinical parameters in German patients with early stage breast cancer. Int J Mol Med. 2010;26:837–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bichlien Nguyen
    • 1
  • Pino G. Cusumano
    • 2
  • Kenneth Deck
    • 3
  • Deborah Kerlin
    • 4
  • Agustin A. Garcia
    • 5
  • Julie L. Barone
    • 6
  • Edgardo Rivera
    • 7
  • Katharine Yao
    • 8
  • Femke A. de Snoo
    • 9
  • Jeroen van den Akker
    • 9
  • Lisette Stork-Sloots
    • 9
  • Daniele Generali
    • 10
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Todd Cancer InstituteLong Beach Memorial Medical CenterLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyCHCLiegeBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Surgical OncologySaddleback Memorial Medical CenterLaguna HillsUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryJohn MuirWalnut CreekUSA
  5. 5.Division of OncologyKeck School of Medicine of the University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryComprehensive Breast Care of San Diego and Sharp Memorial HospitalSan DiegoUSA
  7. 7.Department of Medical OncologyThe Methodist Hospital/Weill Cornell UniversityHoustonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Surgical OncologyNorth Shore University Health SystemChicagoUSA
  9. 9.Agendia N.V.AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  10. 10.Department of Medical Oncology, U.O.M. Patologia Mammaria-Laboratorio di Oncologia Molecolare SenologicaA.O. Istituti Ospitalieri di CremonaCremonaItaly

Personalised recommendations