dc.contributor.author | Buus, R | |
dc.contributor.author | Sestak, I | |
dc.contributor.author | Kronenwett, R | |
dc.contributor.author | Denkert, C | |
dc.contributor.author | Dubsky, P | |
dc.contributor.author | Krappmann, K | |
dc.contributor.author | Scheer, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Petry, C | |
dc.contributor.author | Cuzick, J | |
dc.contributor.author | Dowsett, M | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-09-05T11:15:08Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016-11-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2016, 108 (11) | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0027-8874 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/91 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1460-2105 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/jnci/djw149 | |
dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: Estimating distant recurrence (DR) risk among women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer helps decisions on using adjuvant chemotherapy. The 21-gene Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) is widely used for this. EndoPredict (EPclin) is an alternative test combining prognostic information from an eight-gene signature (EP score) with tumor size and nodal status. We compared the prognostic information provided by RS and EPclin for 10-year DR risk. METHODS: We used likelihood ratio χ² and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to compare prognostic information provided by EP, EPclin, RS, and the clinical treatment score (CTS) of clinicopathologic parameters in 928 patients with ER+ disease treated with five years' anastrozole or tamoxifen. Comparisons were made for early (0-5 years) and late (5-10 years) DR according to nodal status. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In the overall population, EP and EPclin provided substantially more prognostic information than RS (LRχ(2): EP = 49.3; LRχ(2): EPclin = 139.3; LRχ(2): RS = 29.1), with greater differences in late DR and in node-positive patients. EP and EPclin remained statistically significantly prognostic when adjusted for RS (ΔLRχ(2): EP+RS vs RS = 20.2; ΔLRχ(2): EPclin+RS vs RS = 113.8). Using predefined cut-offs, EPclin and RS identified 58.8% and 61.7% patients as low risk, with hazard ratios for non-low vs low risk of 5.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.94 to 9.11) and 2.73 (95% CI = 1.91 to 3.89), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EP and EPclin were highly prognostic for DR in endocrine-treated patients with ER+, HER2-negative disease. EPclin provided more prognostic information than RS. This was partly but not entirely because of EPclin integrating molecular data with nodal status and tumor size. | |
dc.format | Print-Electronic | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 | |
dc.subject | Lymph Nodes | |
dc.subject | Humans | |
dc.subject | Breast Neoplasms | |
dc.subject | Lymphatic Metastasis | |
dc.subject | Tamoxifen | |
dc.subject | Nitriles | |
dc.subject | Triazoles | |
dc.subject | Receptor, erbB-2 | |
dc.subject | Receptors, Estrogen | |
dc.subject | Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal | |
dc.subject | Prognosis | |
dc.subject | Disease-Free Survival | |
dc.subject | Tumor Burden | |
dc.subject | Likelihood Functions | |
dc.subject | Risk Assessment | |
dc.subject | Follow-Up Studies | |
dc.subject | Predictive Value of Tests | |
dc.subject | Female | |
dc.subject | Kaplan-Meier Estimate | |
dc.subject | Anastrozole | |
dc.title | Comparison of EndoPredict and EPclin With Oncotype DX Recurrence Score for Prediction of Risk of Distant Recurrence After Endocrine Therapy. | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2016-05-09 | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1093/jnci/djw149 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2016-11 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Journal of the National Cancer Institute | |
pubs.issue | 11 | |
pubs.notes | No embargo | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research/Endocrinology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology/Endocrinology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology/Endocrinology/Endocrinology (hon.) | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Breast Cancer Research/Endocrinology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology/Endocrinology | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Molecular Pathology/Endocrinology/Endocrinology (hon.) | |
pubs.publication-status | Published | |
pubs.volume | 108 | |
pubs.embargo.terms | No embargo | |
icr.researchteam | Endocrinology | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Buus, Richard | |