1
|
Jakubowicz E, Martin B, Hoffmann R, Kröncke T, Jung T, Steierl R, Steinfeld D, Schenkirsch G, Kriegsmann J, Märkl B. EndoPredict versus uPA/PAI-1 in breast cancer: Comparison of markers and association with clinicopathological parameters. Breast J 2019; 25:450-454. [PMID: 31001905 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13258] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2018] [Revised: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 08/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
We retrospectively investigated concordance of EndoPredict (EPclin) with urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (uPA/PAI-1) in 72 breast cancer patients and compared the results with grading, molecular subtype and chemotherapy recommendation. Compared to uPA/PAI-1, EPclin proved to be more conservative concerning correlation with clinicopathological parameters and was significantly associated with the recommendation of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Benedikt Martin
- Institute of Pathology, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Reinhard Hoffmann
- Institute of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Thomas Kröncke
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Thomas Jung
- Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Roman Steierl
- Frauenklinik im Josefinum Augsburg, Katholische Jugendfürsorge Fachklinik, Augsburg, Germany
| | | | - Gerhard Schenkirsch
- Tumor Data Management, Interdisciplinary Cancer Center Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Jörg Kriegsmann
- Histology, Cytology and Molecular Diagnostics Center Trier, Trier, Germany
| | - Bruno Märkl
- Institute of Pathology, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Okunieff P, Casey-Sawicki K, Lockney NA, Hoppe BS, Enderling H, Pinnix C, Welsh J, Krishnan S, Yothers G, Brown M, Knox S, Bristow R, Spellman P, Mitin T, Nabavizadeh N, Jaboin J, Manning HC, Feng F, Galbraith S, Solanki AA, Harkenrider MM, Tuli R, Decker RH, Finkelstein SE, Hsu CC, Ha CS, Jagsi R, Shumway D, Daly M, Wang TJC, Fitzgerald TJ, Laurie F, Marshall DT, Raben D, Constine L, Thomas CR, Kachnic LA. Report from the SWOG Radiation Oncology Committee: Research Objectives Workshop 2017. Clin Cancer Res 2018; 24:3500-3509. [PMID: 29661779 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-3202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2018] [Revised: 03/12/2018] [Accepted: 04/10/2018] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The Radiation Therapy Committee of SWOG periodically evaluates its strategic plan in an effort to maintain a current and relevant scientific focus, and to provide a standard platform for future development of protocol concepts. Participants in the 2017 Strategic Planning Workshop included leaders in cancer basic sciences, molecular theragnostics, pharmaceutical and technology industries, clinical trial design, oncology practice, and statistical analysis. The committee discussed high-priority research areas, such as optimization of combined modality therapy, radiation oncology-specific drug design, identification of molecular profiles predictive of radiation-induced local or distant tumor responses, and methods for normal tissue-specific mitigation of radiation toxicity. The following concepts emerged as dominant questions ready for national testing: (i) what is the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of oligometastatic, oligorecurrent, and oligoprogressive disease? (ii) How can combined modality therapy be used to enhance systemic and local response? (iii) Can we validate and optimize liquid biopsy and other biomarkers (such as novel imaging) to supplement current response criteria to guide therapy and clinical trial design endpoints? (iv) How can we overcome deficiencies of randomized survival endpoint trials in an era of increasing molecular stratification factors? And (v) how can we mitigate treatment-related side effects and maximize quality of life in cancer survivors? The committee concluded that many aspects of these questions are ready for clinical evaluation and example protocol concepts are provided that could improve rates of cancer cure and quality of survival. Clin Cancer Res; 24(15); 3500-9. ©2018 AACR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Okunieff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, Florida.
| | - Katherine Casey-Sawicki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Natalie A Lockney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Bradford S Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Heiko Enderling
- Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| | - Chelsea Pinnix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - James Welsh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sunil Krishnan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Greg Yothers
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Martin Brown
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
| | - Susan Knox
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
| | - Robert Bristow
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Spellman
- Department of Molecular & Medical Genetics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Timur Mitin
- Department of Molecular & Medical Genetics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Nima Nabavizadeh
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon
| | - Jerry Jaboin
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon
| | - H Charles Manning
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Felix Feng
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | | | - Abhishek A Solanki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Matthew M Harkenrider
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Richard Tuli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Roy H Decker
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | - Charles C Hsu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona
| | - Chul S Ha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Dean Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Megan Daly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Diego, California
| | - Tony J C Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Thomas J Fitzgerald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, North Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Fran Laurie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, North Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - David T Marshall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
| | - David Raben
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Louis Constine
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Charles R Thomas
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon
| | - Lisa A Kachnic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Relationship of histologic grade and histologic subtype with oncotype Dx recurrence score; retrospective review of 863 breast cancer oncotype Dx results. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 168:29-34. [PMID: 29230662 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4619-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2017] [Accepted: 12/07/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Oncotype Dx (ODx) is a multigene assay that is prognostic and predictive in estrogen receptor (ER) positive early breast cancer. ODx recurrence score (RS) is reported to be histologic grade dependent. Relationship of RS with breast cancer histologic subtypes is unknown. This study was designed to assess the relationship of histologic subtype with RS. Histologic grade dependence of RS was also investigated. METHODS Results of consecutive ODx tests (1/2007-7/2016) from two institutions were reviewed. Histologic subtypes (in: Lakhani et al., WHO classification, IARC Press, Lyon, 2012), combined Nottingham histologic grade, age and tumor size were recorded from pathology reports. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between RS and ODx risk categories and histologic subtypes, grade, age and tumor size. RESULTS RS was grade dependent. RS of grade 1 and grade 2 tumors were significantly lower than grade 3 tumors. There was no high-risk grade 1 tumor. In favorable histologic subtypes there was no high-risk tumor. Mean RS of grade 1 lobular tumors was significantly higher than grade 1 ductal tumors. Using newer ODx cut-offs, 5 grade 1 tumors were reclassified as high risk (RS > 25) and grade 3 lobular tumors showed significantly higher rate of reclassification as high-risk than grade 3 ductal tumors. In a multivariate analysis, only grade showed a significant positive correlation with RS. Adding dichotomous histologic subtyping (favorable vs. non-favorable) to grade further improved correlation with RS. CONCLUSIONS The Oncotype Dx result is impacted by histologic grade and histologic subtype. Tumors with favorable histologic subtypes and histologic grade 1 tumors do not have high-risk RS. High RS in a grade 1 tumor or in a tumor with favorable histology is unusual that warrants further investigation. Invasive lobular carcinomas rarely show high-risk RS. Histologic grade and histologic subtype should be considered while ordering ODx testing.
Collapse
|