Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2018

20.11.2017 | Breast Oncology

Molecular Genomic Testing for Breast Cancer: Utility for Surgeons

verfasst von: Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju, MD, MA, MPHS, Ko Un Park, MD, Anthony Lucci, MD, FACS

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Molecular genomic testing provides clinicians with both prognostic and (sometimes) predictive information that can help individualize treatment and decrease the risk of over- or under-treatment. We review the genomic tests that are currently available for clinical use in management of breast cancer, discuss ongoing research related to validating and expanding their utility in different patient populations, and explain why it is important for surgeons to know how to incorporate these tools into their clinical practice in order to individualize patient treatment, reduce unnecessary morbidity, and, accordingly, improve outcomes.
Literatur
1.
Joh JE, Esposito NN, Kiluk JV, et al. The effect of Oncotype DX recurrence score on treatment recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor-positive early stage breast cancer and correlation with estimation of recurrence risk by breast cancer specialists. Oncologist. 2011;16:1520–1526.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. Multi-gene RT-PCR assay for predicting recurrence in node negative breast cancer patients–NSABP studies B-20 and B-14. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;82:A16.
3.
Cobleigh MA, Tabesh B, Bitterman P, et al. Tumor gene expression and prognosis in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:8623–8631.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Esteban J, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. Tumor gene expression and prognosis in breast cancer: multi-gene RT-PCR assay of paraffin-embedded tissue. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;22:850.
5.
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–2826.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3726–3734.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, et al. A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152:389–398.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(10):701–710.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2005–2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M, et al. West German Study Group Phase III PlanB Trial: first prospective outcome data for the 21-gene recurrence score assay and concordance of prognostic markers by central and local pathology assessment. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(20): 2341–2349.CrossRefPubMed
11.
AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Springer, New York; 2017.
12.
Hayes DF. Targeting adjuvant chemotherapy: a good idea that needs to be proven! J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1264–1267.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, 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.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky 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;23:3686–3696.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zanotti L, Bottini A, Rossi C, et al. Diagnostic tests based on gene expression profile in breast cancer: from background to clinical use. Tumor Biol. 2014;35:8461–8470.CrossRef
16.
Dabbs DJ, Klein ME, Mohsin SK, et al. High false-negative rate of HER2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of the Oncotype DX test: an independent quality assurance study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4279–4285.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1049–1060.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Yardley DA, Peacock NW, Shastry M, et al. A phase II trial of ixabepilone and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with HER2-negative breast cancer: correlation of pathologic complete response with the 21-gene recurrence score. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154:299–308.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bear HD, Wan W, Robidoux A, et al. Using the 21-gene assay from core needle biopsies to choose neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: a multicenter trial. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:917–923.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Shak S, Petkov V, Miller D, et al. Abstract P5-15-01: breast cancer specific survival in 38,568 patients with node negative hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer and oncotype DX recurrence score results in the SEER database. Cancer Res. 2016;76:P5–P15.CrossRef
21.
Stemmer S, Steiner M, Rizel S, et al. Abstract P5-08-02: Real-life analysis evaluating 1594 N0/Nmic breast cancer patients for whom treatment decisions incorporated the 21-gene recurrence score result: 5-year KM estimate for breast cancer specific survival with recurrence score results ≤ 30 is > 98%. Cancer Res. 2016;76:P5–08.CrossRef
22.
Mook S, Veer L, Rutgers EJT, et al. Individualization of therapy using Mammaprint®ì: from development to the MINDACT Trial. Cancer Genom Proteom. 2007;4:147–155.PubMed
23.
van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van ‘t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Cardoso F, Piccart-Gebhart M, Van’t Veer L, Rutgers E. The MINDACT trial: The first prospective clinical validation of a genomic tool. Mol Oncol. 2007;1:246–251.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Liu J. Model Selection/Validation. In: Cosmatos D, Chow S-C (eds) Translational medicine: strategies and statistical methods. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group; 2009.
26.
Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, et al. 70-Gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:717–729.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retèl VP, et al. A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:929–936.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Bartlett JM, Thomas J, Ross DT, et al. Mammostrat® as a tool to stratify breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence during endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:1–11.
29.
Nielsen T, Wallden B, Schaper C, et al. Analytical validation of the PAM50-based prosigna breast cancer prognostic gene signature assay and nCounter Analysis System using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast tumor specimens. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:1.CrossRef
30.
Ma XJ, Salunga R, Dahiya S, et al. A five-gene molecular grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:2601–2608.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Link JS, Buck LJ, Kapoor NS. The breast cancer index as a tool in decision making for adjuvant hormonal therapy in early luminal breast cancer: Initiation, withdrawal and continuance. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8–12. Cancer Res. 2016;72: Abstract nr P5-08-10.
32.
Dubsky P, Filipits M, Jakesz R, et al. EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:640–647.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Liedtke C, Hatzis C, Symmans WF, et al. Genomic grade index is associated with response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3185–3191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, et al. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4273–4278.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Bartlett JM, Bayani J, Marshall A, et al. Comparing breast cancer multiparameter tests in the OPTIMA Prelim trial: no test is more equal than the others. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:djw050.CrossRef
37.
38.
Rakha EA, Soria D, Green AR, et al. Nottingham prognostic index plus (NPI+): a modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:1688–1697.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Green AR, Soria D, Stephen J, et al. Nottingham prognostic index plus: validation of a clinical decision making tool in breast cancer in an independent series. J Pathol Clin Res. 2016;2:32–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Sinn P, Aulmann S, Wirtz R, et al. Multigene assays for classification, prognosis, and prediction in breast cancer: a critical review on the background and clinical utility. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73:932–940.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
D’Alfonso TM, van Laar RK, Vahdat LT, et al. BreastPRS is a gene expression assay that stratifies intermediate-risk Oncotype DX patients into high- or low-risk for disease recurrence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139:705–715.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Tutt A, Wang A, Rowland C, et al. Risk estimation of distant metastasis in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients using an RT-PCR based prognostic expression signature. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:339.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Molecular Genomic Testing for Breast Cancer: Utility for Surgeons
verfasst von
Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju, MD, MA, MPHS
Ko Un Park, MD
Anthony Lucci, MD, FACS
Publikationsdatum
20.11.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6254-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Breast Oncology

Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters

Thoracic Oncology

Impact of Sarcopenia on Unplanned Readmission and Survival After Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Gastrointestinal Oncology

The Impact of Primary Tumor Location on Long-Term Survival in Patients Undergoing Hepatic Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer

Melanomas

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Management of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Breast Oncology

Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Nodal Disease and Nodal Surgery by Tumor Subtype

Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Oncologic Outcome and Quality of Life After Hindquarter Amputation for Sarcoma: Is it Worth it?

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

16.04.2024 | Infektiologie | Nachrichten

Kein Abstrich bei chronischen Wunden ohne Entzündungszeichen!

10.04.2024 | Postoperative Schmerztherapie | Nachrichten

Chronische Schmerzen nach Op. oft mit neuropathischer Komponente

10.04.2024 | Narbenhernie | Nachrichten

Deutlich weniger Narbenhernien mit der Small-Bites-Technik

09.04.2024 | Appendektomie | Nachrichten

Appendektomie: Vorsicht bei systemischen Glukokortikoiden!
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.