nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.03.2021 | Clinical trial

Direct comparison of three different mathematical models in two independent datasets of EUSOMA certified centers to predict recurrence and survival in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: impact on clinical practice

verfasst von: Cristiana Iacuzzo, Fabiola Giudici, Serena Scomersi, Rita Ceccherini, Fabrizio Zanconati, Daniele Generali, Marina Bortul

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Prediction algorithms estimating survival rates for breast cancer (BC) based upon risk factors and treatment could give a help to the clinicians during multidisciplinary meetings. The aim of this study was to evaluate accuracy and clinical utility of three different scores: the Clinical Treatment Score Post-5 Years (CTS5), the PREDICT Score, and the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI).

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort analysis conducted on prospectively recorded databases of two EUSOMA certified centers (Breast Unit of Trieste Academic Hospital and of Cremona Hospital, Italy). We included patients with Luminal BC undergone to breast surgery between 2010 and 2015, and subsequent endocrine therapy for 5 years for curative intent.

Results

A total of 473 patients were enrolled in this study. ROC analysis showed fair accuracy for NPI, good accuracy for PREDICT, and optimal accuracy for CTS5 (AUC 0.7, 0.76, and 0.83, respectively). The three scores seemed strongly correlated in Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient analysis. PREDICT partially overestimated OS in patients undergone to mastectomy, and in pT3-4, G3 tumors. Considering DRFS as a surrogate of OS, CTS5 showed women in intermediate and high risk class had shorter OS too (respectively p = 0.001 and p < 0.001). Combining scores does not improve prognostication power.

Conclusion

Mathematical models may help clinicians in decision making (adjuvant therapies, CDK4/6i, genomic test’s gray zones). CTS5 has the higher prognostic accuracy in predicting recurrence, while score predicting OS did not show substantial advances, proving that pN, G, and pT are still the most important variables in predicting OS.

Harbeck N, Penault-Llorca F, Cortes J et al (2019) Breast cancer Nat Rev Dis Primers 5:66CrossRef

Gray R et al. Increasing the dose density of adjuvant chemotherapy by shortening intervals between courses or by sequential drug administration significantly reduces both disease recurrence and breast cancer mortality: an EBCTCG meta-analysis of 21,000 women in 16 randomised trials [abstract]. SABCS GS1-GS01 (2018).

Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R (1996) Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 14:2738–2746CrossRef

Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Price KN et al (1994) Effect of systemic adjuvant treatment on first sites of breast cancer relapse. Lancet 343:377–381CrossRef

Pagani O, Price KN, Gelber RD et al (2009) Inter- national Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG): Pat- terns of recurrence of early breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status: A therapeutic target for a quarter of a century. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:319–324CrossRef

Kattan MW, Giri D, Panageas KS, Hummer A, Cranor M, Van Zee KJ, Hudis CA, Norton L, Borgen PI, Tan LK (2004) A tool for predicting breast carcinoma mortality in women who do not receive adjuvant therapy. Cancer 101:2509–2515CrossRef

D’Eredita G, Giardina C, Martellotta M et al (2001) Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index in patients with long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution. Eur J Cancer 37:591–596CrossRef

Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Bojar H, Schmoor C, Schumacher M (1999) the German Breast Cancer Study Group (GBSG) Modelling the effects of standard prognostic factors in node positive breast cancer. Brit J Cancer. 79:1752–1760CrossRef

Dowsett M, Sestak I, Regan MM et al (2018) Integration of clinical variables for the prediction of late distant recurrence in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with 5 years of endocrine therapy CTS5. J Clin Oncol 36(19):1941–1948. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.4258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Goss PE, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI et al (2016) Extending aromatase-inhibitor adjuvant therapy to 10 years. N Engl J Med 375:209–219CrossRef

11.

Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J et al (2013) Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 381:805–816CrossRef

12.

Sestak I, Dowsett M, Zabaglo L et al (2013) Factors predicting late recurrence for estrogen receptor- positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 105:1504–1511CrossRef

13.

Mittempergher L, Saghatchian M, Wolf DM et al (2013) A gene signature for late distant metastasis in breast cancer identifies a potential mechanism of late recurrences. Mol Oncol 7:987–999CrossRef

14.

Pan H, Gray R, Braybrooke JP et al (2017) 20-year recurrence risks for patients with estrogen receptor- positive breast cancer after adjuvant endocrine treatment for only 5 years. N Engl J Med 377:1836–1846CrossRef

15.

Wishart GC, Azzato EM, Greenberg DC et al (2010) PREDICT a new UK prognostic model that predicts survival following surgery for invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 12(1):401. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2464CrossRefPubMedCentral

16.

Candido Dos Reis FJ et al (2017) An updated PREDICT breast cancer prognostication and treatment benefit prediction model with independent validation. Breast Cancer Res. 19:58CrossRef

17.

Regan MM, Neven P, Giobbie-Hurder A et al (2011) Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: The BIG 1–98 randomised clinical trial at 8.1 years median follow-up. Lancet Oncol 12:1101–1108CrossRef

18.

Winzer KJ, Buchholz A, Schumacher M, Sauerbrei W (2016) Improving the Prognostic Ability through Better Use of Standard Clinical Data - The Nottingham Prognostic Index as an Example. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0149977. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149977)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Lee J, Cha C, Ahn SG et al (2020) Validation of Clinical Treatment Score post-5 years (CTS5) risk stratification in premenopausal breast cancer patients and Ki-67 labelling index. Sci Rep 10:16850CrossRef

20.

Johnston SRD, Harbeck N, Hegg R, Toi M, Martin M, Shao ZM, Zhang QY, Martinez Rodriguez JL, Campone M, Hamilton E, Sohn J, Guarneri V, Okada M, Boyle F, Neven P, Cortés J, Huober J, Wardley A, Tolaney SM, Cicin I, Smith IC, Frenzel M, Headley D, Wei R, San Antonio B, Hulstijn M, Cox J, O'Shaughnessy J, Rastogi (2020) P monarchE Committee Members and Investigators. Abemaciclib Combined With Endocrine Therapy for the Adjuvant Treatment of HR+, HER2-, Node-Positive, High-Risk, Early Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol Doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02514.

21.

Boeri C, Chiappa C, Galli F et al (2020) Machine Learning techniques in breast cancer prognosis prediction: A primary evaluation. Cancer Med 9(9):3234–3243. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2811CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Direct comparison of three different mathematical models in two independent datasets of EUSOMA certified centers to predict recurrence and survival in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: impact on clinical practice
verfasst von: Cristiana Iacuzzo
Fabiola Giudici
Serena Scomersi
Rita Ceccherini
Fabrizio Zanconati
Daniele Generali
Marina Bortul
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-021-06144-4

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Direct comparison of three different mathematical models in two independent datasets of EUSOMA certified centers to predict recurrence and survival in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: impact on clinical practice