Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gene Arrays, Prognosis, and Therapeutic Interventions

  • Chapter
Breast Disease

  • 2010 Accesses

Abstract

Among women, breast cancer accounts for one-third of cancer cases and is the second most frequent cause of death. Improvements in treatment agents and screening procedures have increased the diagnosis of early breast cancer and survival rates. Adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine treatment decrease the mortality of early breast cancer by approximately 50 %. However, not all early breast cancer patients benefit equally from adjuvant endocrine treatment and/or chemotherapy. Patients at high risk are classically identified based on clinicopathological factors, such as age, tumor size, histopathological grade, nodal status, hormone and HER2 receptor positivity, and menopausal status. However, for patients with early breast cancer, using these standard clinicopathological factors might not thoroughly show the individual risk of disease recurrence and the benefits from adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Many patients with early breast cancer do not derive benefit from adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Quality-of-life issues, acute and long-term side effects of systemic chemotherapy, and the cost of unnecessary treatments are the main factors of concern for this group of patients. Quantitative approaches for defining prognoses and for individualizing treatments are required. In recent years, molecular signatures of gene expression have been correlated with breast cancer recurrence risk. Several tests for genomic expression have been developed and validated on specimens from previous phase III studies to improve the prognostication of early breast cancer patients and/or the prediction of adjuvant systemic treatment. The most commonly used genomic expression-based tests used for prognostic information and for the prediction of chemotherapy benefits in early breast cancer are summarized below.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:11–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998;352:930–42.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998;351:1451–67.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bedard PL, Cardoso F. Can some patients avoid adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer? Nature reviews. Clin Oncol. 2011;8:272–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bryant J, Fisher B, Gunduz N, Costantino JP, Emir B. S-phase fraction combined with other patient and tumor characteristics for the prognosis of node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;51:239–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Henderson IC, Patek AJ. The relationship between prognostic and predictive factors in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52:261–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:966–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bast Jr RC, Ravdin P, Hayes DF, Bates S, Fritsche Jr H, Jessup JM, et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1865–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Senn HJ. Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. Seventh International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cance. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3817–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eifel P, Axelson JA, Costa J, Crowley J, Curran Jr WJ, Deshler A, et al. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1–3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:979–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P, Huard C, Gaasenbeek M, Mesirov JP, et al. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science. 1999;286:531–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van ’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:530–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harbeck N, Sotlar K, Wuerstlein R, Doisneau-Sixou S. Molecular and protein markers for clinical decision making in breast cancer: today and tomorrow. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40:434–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cronin M, Pho M, Dutta D, Stephans JC, Shak S, Kiefer MC, et al. Measurement of gene expression in archival paraffin-embedded tissues: development and performance of a 92-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay. Am J Pathol. 2004;164:35–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Esteva FJ, Sahin AA, Coombes K, Baker J, Cronin M, Walker M, Watson D, Cristofanilli M, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN. Multi-gene RT-PCR assay for predicting recurrence in node negative breast cancer patients – M.D. Anderson Clinical Validation Study [abstract]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;82:A17. doi:10.1023/B:BREA.0000003871.38587.8b. http://www.sabcs.org.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cobleigh MA, Bitterman P, Baker J, Cronin M, Liu M-L, Borchik R, Tabesh B, Mosquera J-M, Walker MG, Shak S. Tumor gene expression predicts distant disease-free survival (DDFS) in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive nodes: high throughput RT-PCR assay of paraffin-embedded tumor tissues [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;22:A3415.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, Baehner R, Walker M, Watson D, Park T, et al. Multi-gene RT-PCR assay for predicting recurrence in node negative breast cancer patients – NSABP studies B-20 and B-14 [abstract]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;82:A16. http://www.sabcs.org.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(3):R25. doi:10.1186/bcr1412.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Toi M, Iwata H, Yamanaka T, Masuda N, Ohno S, Nakamura S, et al. Clinical significance of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in hormone receptor-positive early stage primary breast cancer in the Japanese population. Cancer. 2010;116:3112–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher B, Redmond C, Legault-Poisson S, Dimitrov NV, Brown AM, Wickerham DL, et al. Postoperative chemotherapy and tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen alone in the treatment of positive-node breast cancer patients aged 50 years and older with tumors responsive to tamoxifen: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-16. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1005–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Baum M, Budzar AU, Cuzick J, Forbes J, Houghton JH, Klijn JG, et al. Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2131–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arimidex TAoiCTG, Forbes JF, Cuzick J, Buzdar A, Howell A, Tobias JS, et al. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Emir B, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1673–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, Citron ML, Budman DR, Goldstein LJ, et al. Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA. 2006;295:1658–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hayes DF, Thor AD, Dressler LG, Weaver D, Edgerton S, Cowan D, et al. HER2 and response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1496–506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky B, Fehrenbacher L, Sedlacek SM, Fisher B, et al. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3686–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mamounas E, Tang G, Paik S, et al. Association between the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) and benefit from adjuvant paclitaxel (Pac) in node-positive (N+), ER-positive breast cancer patients (pts): results from NSABP B-28 [Abstract]. Cancer Res. 2012;72(24 Suppl):S1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:55–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S, Childs BH, Yoshizawa C, Rowley S, et al. Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4063–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sparano JA, O’Neill A, Gray RJ, et al. 10-year update of E2197: phase III doxorubicin/docetaxel (AT) versus doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) adjuvant treatment of LN+ and high-risk LN- breast cancer and the comparison of the prognostic utility of the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) with clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(Suppl 15) [abstract 1021].

    Google Scholar 

  36. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Thompson A, Zackrisson S, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24 Suppl 6:vi7–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thurlimann B, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2206–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5287–312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed: 1 Jan 2015.

  40. Oratz R, Kim B, Chao C, Skrzypczak S, Ory C, Bugarini R, et al. Physician survey of the effect of the 21-gene recurrence score assay results on treatment recommendations for patients with lymph node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:94–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Klang S, Liebermann N, Rizel S, et al. The recurrence score and chemotherapy treatment in node-positive, ER+ early-stage breast cancer patients in Israel. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15 Suppl):[Abstract] 6075.

    Google Scholar 

  42. de Boer RH, Baker C, Speakman D, Chao CY, Yoshizawa C, Mann GB. The impact of a genomic assay (Oncotype DX) on adjuvant treatment recommendations in early breast cancer. Med J Aust. 2013;199:205–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Estevez LG, Calvo I, Abad MF, et al. A retrospective study in the Spanish population with Oncotype dx recurrence score (RS) in breast cancer patients with positive and negative-lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl; [abstract] e11531).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Carlson JJ, Roth JA. The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141:13–22.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Goncalves R, Bose R. Using multigene tests to select treatment for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Network. 2013;11:174–82; quiz 82.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sparano JA. TAILORx: trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx). Clin Breast Cancer. 2006;7:347–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gluz O, Kreipe H, Dehenhardt T, Christgen M, Kates R, Liedtke C, et al. Prospective comparison of risk assessment tools in early breast cancer (recurrence score, uPA/PAI-1, central grade, and luminal subtypes): final correlation analysis from the phase III WSG plan B trial. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer symposium; 2011. [Abstract] S4–3.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Glas AM, Floore A, Delahaye LJ, Witteveen AT, Pover RC, Bakx N, et al. Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics. 2006;7:278.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Martin M, Prat A, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Caballero R, Ebbert MT, Munarriz B, et al. PAM50 proliferation score as a predictor of weekly paclitaxel benefit in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138:457–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sapino A, Roepman P, Linn SC, Snel MH, Delahaye LJ, van den Akker J, et al. MammaPrint molecular diagnostics on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. J Mol Diagn. 2014;16:190–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1183–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mook S, Schmidt MK, Viale G, Pruneri G, Eekhout I, Floore A, et al. 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. 2009;116:295–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Saghatchian M, Mook S, Pruneri G, Viale G, Glas AM, Guerin S, et al. Additional prognostic value of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint((R))) among breast cancer patients with 4–9 positive lymph nodes. Breast. 2013;22:682–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retel VP, van Harten WH, van Tinteren H, Wesseling J, et al. A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:929–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Knauer M, Mook S, Rutgers EJ, Bender RA, Hauptmann M, van de Vijver MJ, et al. The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120:655–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Cusumano PG, Generali D, Ciruelos E, Manso L, Ghanem I, Lifrange E, et al. European inter-institutional impact study of MammaPrint. Breast. 2014;23:423–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, Delaloge S, Veer LV, Rubio IT, et al. The EORTC 10041/BIG 03–04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phase. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2742–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1160–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, Voduc D, Ebbert M, Vickery T, 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E, Sidhu K, Dunbier AK, Cowens JW, et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2783–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gnant M, Filipits M, Greil R, Stoeger H, Rudas M, Bago-Horvath Z, et al. Predicting distant recurrence in receptor-positive breast cancer patients with limited clinicopathological risk: using the PAM50 Risk of Recurrence score in 1478 postmenopausal patients of the ABCSG-8 trial treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:339–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sestak I, Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Lopez-Knowles E, Filipits M, Dubsky P, et al. Prediction of late distant recurrence after 5 years of endocrine treatment: a combined analysis of patients from the Austrian breast and colorectal cancer study group 8 and arimidex, tamoxifen alone or in combination randomized trials using the PAM50 risk of recurrence score. J Clin Oncol. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Chia SK, Bramwell VH, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Jiang S, Vickery T, et al. A 50-gene intrinsic subtype classifier for prognosis and prediction of benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:4465–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Bastien RR, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ebbert MT, Prat A, Munarriz B, Rowe L, et al. PAM50 breast cancer subtyping by RT-qPCR and concordance with standard clinical molecular markers. BMC Med Genomics. 2012;5:44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sweeney C, Bernard PS, Factor RE, Kwan ML, Habel LA, Quesenberry Jr CP, et al. Intrinsic subtypes from PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer cohort: differences by age, race, and tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:714–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Caan BJ, Sweeney C, Habel LA, Kwan ML, Kroenke CH, Weltzien EK, et al. Intrinsic subtypes from the PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer survivor cohort: prognostication of short- and long-term outcomes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:725–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Dunbier AK, Anderson H, Ghazoui Z, Salter J, Parker JS, Perou CM, et al. Association between breast cancer subtypes and response to neoadjuvant anastrozole. Steroids. 2011;76:736–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Cheang MC, Voduc KD, Tu D, Jiang S, Leung S, Chia SK, et al. Responsiveness of intrinsic subtypes to adjuvant anthracycline substitution in the NCIC.CTG MA.5 randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:2402–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, Bramwell V, Gelmon K, Walley B, et al. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and Fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel versus Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:77–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Liu S, Chapman JA, Burnell MJ, Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Whelan TJ, et al. Prognostic and predictive investigation of PAM50 intrinsic subtypes in the NCIC CTG MA.21 phase III chemotherapy trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:439–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Krijgsman O, Roepman P, Zwart W, Carroll JS, Tian S, de Snoo FA, et al. A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133:37–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Whitworth P, Stork-Sloots L, de Snoo FA, Richards P, Rotkis M, Beatty J, et al. Chemosensitivity predicted by BluePrint 80-gene functional subtype and MammaPrint in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST). Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3261–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R, Dubsky P, Fitzal F, Singer CF, et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:6012–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Dubsky P, Filipits M, Jakesz R, Rudas M, Singer CF, Greil R, et al. EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:640–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Reyal F, Bollet MA, Caly M, Gentien D, Carpentier S, Peyro-Saint-Paul H, et al. Respective prognostic value of genomic grade and histological proliferation markers in early stage (pN0) breast carcinoma. PLoS One. 2012;7:e35184.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Metzger-Filho O, Michiels S, Bertucci F, Catteau A, Salgado R, Galant C, et al. Genomic grade adds prognostic value in invasive lobular carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:377–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Toussaint J, Sieuwerts AM, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Rouas G, Harris AL, 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. 2009;10:424.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Yang F, et al. Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet. 2005;365:671–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Foekens JA, Atkins D, Zhang Y, Sweep FC, Harbeck N, Paradiso A, et al. Multicenter validation of a gene expression-based prognostic signature in lymph node-negative primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1665–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Desmedt C, Piette F, Loi S, Wang Y, Lallemand F, Haibe-Kains B, et al. Strong time dependence of the 76-gene prognostic signature for node-negative breast cancer patients in the TRANSBIG multicenter independent validation series. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3207–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, McGreevy M, Casey G, Cufer T, Paradiso A, et al. The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients that benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:303–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir University Faculty of Medicine, Medical Park Hospital, Karsiyaka, Izmir, Turkey

    Cagatay Arslan MD

  2. Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Ankara, 06100, Turkey

    M. Kadri Altundag MD & Y. Yavuz Ozisik MD

Authors
  1. Cagatay Arslan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Kadri Altundag MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y. Yavuz Ozisik MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cagatay Arslan MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Adnan Aydiner

  2. Institute of Oncology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Abdullah İğci

  3. Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburg, California, USA

    Atilla Soran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arslan, C., Altundag, M.K., Ozisik, Y.Y. (2016). Gene Arrays, Prognosis, and Therapeutic Interventions. In: Aydiner, A., İğci, A., Soran, A. (eds) Breast Disease. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22843-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22843-3_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22842-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22843-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation