Gene expression profiling impacts treatment decision making in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients in the prospective PROMMIS trial.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous hematologic malignancy associated with several risk factors including genetic aberrations which impact disease response and survival. Thorough risk classification is essential to select the best clinical strategy to optimize outcomes. The SKY92 molecular signature classifies patients as standard- or high-risk for progression. The PRospective Observational Multiple Myeloma Impact Study (PROMMIS; NCT02911571) measures impact of SKY92 on risk classification and treatment plan. Newly diagnosed MM patients had bone marrow aspirates analyzed for SKY92. Physicians completed a questionnaire for each patient capturing risk classification, hypothetical treatment plan, and physician confidence in the treatment plan, before and after unblinding SKY92. One hundred forty seven MM patients were enrolled. Before unblinding SKY92, physicians regarded 74 (50%) patients as clinical standard-risk. After unblinding SKY92, 16 patients were re-assigned as high-risk by the physician, and for 15 of them treatment strategy was impacted, resulting in an escalated treatment plan. For the 73 (50%) clinical high-risk patients, SKY92 indicated 46 patients to be standard-risk; for 31 of these patients the treatment strategy was impacted consistent with a de-escalation of risk. Overall, SKY92 impacted treatment decisions in 37% of patients (p < 0.001). For clinical decision-making, physicians incorporated SKY92, and the final assigned clinical risk was in line with SKY92 for 89% of patients. Furthermore, SKY92 significantly increased the confidence of the physicians' treatment decisions (p < 0.001). This study shows potential added value of SKY92 in MM for treatment decision making.

Pertuzumab/Trastuzumab/CT Versus Trastuzumab/CT Therapy for HER2+ Breast Cancer: Results from the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST).

BACKGROUND: Pertuzumab became a standard part of neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers approximately halfway through Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) enrollment, providing a unique opportunity to determine biologically which clinical HER2+ patients benefit most from dual targeting. As a neoadjuvant phase 4 study, NBRST classifies patients by both conventional and molecular subtyping. METHODS: Of 308 clinical HER2+ patients enrolled in NBRST between 2011 and 2014 from 62 U.S. institutions, 297 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) with HER2-targeted therapy and underwent surgery. This study compared the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of BluePrint versus clinical subtypes with treatment, specifically differences between trastuzumab (T) treatment and trastuzumab and pertuzumab (T/P) treatment. RESULTS: In this study, 60% of the patients received NCT-T, and 40% received NCT-T/P. The overall pCR rate (ypT0/isN0) was 47%. BluePrint classified 161 tumors (54%) as HER2 type, with a pCR rate of 65%. This was significantly higher than the pCR rate for the 91 HER2+ tumors (31%) classified as luminal (18%) (p = 0.00001) and the 45 tumors (15%) classified as basal (44%) (p = 0.0166). The patients treated with T/P had higher pCR rates than those treated with trastuzumab alone. The difference was most pronounced in the BluePrint luminal patients (8 vs. 31%). The highest pCR was reached by the BluePrint HER2-type patients treated with T/P (76%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pertuzumab leads to increased pCR rates for all HER2+ patient groups except for the BluePrint basal-type patients. This better response was most pronounced for the BluePrint luminal-type patients.

Chemosensitivity and Endocrine Sensitivity in Clinical Luminal Breast Cancer Patients in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) Predicted by Molecular Subtyping.

PURPOSE: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumors have heterogeneous biology and present a challenge for determining optimal treatment. In the Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) patients were classified according to MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping to provide insight into the response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this predefined substudy was to compare MammaPrint/BluePrint with conventional 'clinical' immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization (IHC/FISH) subtyping in 'clinical luminal' [HR+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-)] breast cancer patients to predict treatment sensitivity. METHODS: NBRST IHC/FISH HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients (n = 474) were classified into four molecular subgroups by MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal type. Pathological complete response (pCR) rates were compared with conventional IHC/FISH subtype. RESULTS: The overall pCR rate for 'clinical luminal' patients to NCT was 11 %; however, 87 of these 474 patients were reclassified as Basal type by BluePrint, with a high pCR rate of 32 %. The MammaPrint index was highly associated with the likelihood of pCR (p < 0.001). Fifty-three patients with BluePrint Luminal tumors received NET with an aromatase inhibitor and 36 (68 %) had a clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: With BluePrint subtyping, 18 % of clinical 'luminal' patients are classified in a different subgroup, compared with conventional assessment, and these patients have a significantly higher response rate to NCT compared with BluePrint Luminal patients. MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping can help allocate effective treatment to appropriate patients. In addition, accurate identification of subtype biology is important in the interpretation of neoadjuvant treatment response since lack of pCR in luminal patients does not portend the worse prognosis associated with residual disease in Basal and HER2 subtypes.

An international study comparing conventional versus mRNA level testing (TargetPrint) for ER, PR, and HER2 status of breast cancer.

To compare results from messenger RNA (mRNA)-based TargetPrint testing with those from immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) conducted according to local standard procedures at hospitals worldwide. Tumor samples were prospectively obtained from 806 patients at 22 hospitals. The mRNA level of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) was assessed by TargetPrint quantitative gene expression readouts. IHC/ISH assessments were performed according to local standards at the participating hospitals. TargetPrint readout showed a high concordance with IHC/ISH of 95 % (kappa 0.81) for ER, 81 % (kappa 0.56) for PR, and 94 % (kappa 0.76) for HER2. The positive/negative agreement between TargetPrint and IHC for ER, PR, and HER2 was 96 %/87 %, 84 %/74 %, and 74 %/98 %, respectively. The concordance rate in IHC/ISH results between hospitals varied: 88-100 % for ER (kappa 0.50-1.00); 50-100 % for PR (kappa 0.20-1.00); and 90-100 % for HER2 (kappa 0.59-1.00). mRNA readout of ER, PR, and HER2 status by TargetPrint was largely comparable to local IHC/ISH analysis. However, there was substantial discordance in IHC/ISH results between different hospitals. When results are discordant, the use of TargetPrint would improve the reliability of hormone receptor and HER2 results by prompting retesting in a reference laboratory.

Discordant assessment of tumor biomarkers by histopathological and molecular assays in the EORTC randomized controlled 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial breast cancer : Intratumoral heterogeneity and DCIS or normal tissue components are unlikely to be the cause of discordance.

Accurate identification of breast cancer patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant systemic therapies is crucial. Better understanding of differences between methods can lead to an improved ER, PgR, and HER-2 assessment. The purpose of this preplanned translational research is to investigate the correlation of central IHC/FISH assessments with microarray mRNA readouts of ER, PgR, and HER-2 status in the MINDACT trial and to determine if any discordance could be attributed to intratumoral heterogeneity or the DCIS and normal tissue components in the specimens. MINDACT is an international, prospective, randomized, phase III trial investigating the clinical utility of MammaPrint in selecting patients with early breast cancer for adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 6694 patients). Gene-expression data were obtained by TargetPrint; IHC and/or FISH were assessed centrally (n = 5788; 86 %). Macroscopic and microscopic evaluation of centrally submitted FFPE blocks identified 1427 cases for which the very same sample was submitted for gene-expression analysis. TargetPrint ER had a positive agreement of 98 %, and a negative agreement of 95 % with central pathology. Corresponding figures for PgR were 85 and 94 % and for HER-2 72 and 99 %. Agreement of mRNA versus central protein was not different when the same or a different portion of the tumor tissue was analyzed or when DCIS and/or normal tissue was included in the sample subjected to mRNA assays. This is the first large analysis to assess the discordance rate between protein and mRNA analysis of breast cancer markers, and to look into intratumoral heterogeneity, DCIS, or normal tissue components as a potential cause of discordance. The observed difference between mRNA and protein assessment for PgR and HER-2 needs further research; the present analysis does not support intratumoral heterogeneity or the DCIS and normal tissue components being likely causes of the discordance.

Impact of Tumor Size on Probability of Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Symphony Trial (NBRST) study found that MammaPrint/BluePrint functional molecular subtype is superior to conventional immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization subtyping for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The purpose of this substudy was to determine if the rate of pCR is affected by tumor size. METHODS: The NBRST study includes breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping classified patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), and Basal type. Probability of pCR (ypT0/isN0) as a function of tumor size and molecular subgroup was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients were evaluable with overall pCR rates of 28.5 %. Luminal A and B patients had significantly lower rates of pCR (6.1 and 8.7 %, respectively) than either basal (37.1 %) or HER2 (55.0 %) patients (p < 0.001). The probability of pCR significantly decreased with tumor size >5 cm [p = 0.022, odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.36, 0.93]. This relationship was statistically significant in the Basal (p = 0.026, OR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.23, 0.91) and HER2 (p = 0.039, OR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.14, 0.95) subgroups. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the dichotomized tumor size variable was not significant in any of the molecular subgroups. DISCUSSION: Even though tumor size would intuitively be a clinical determinant of pCR, the current analysis showed that the adjusted OR for tumor size was not statistically significant in any of the molecular subgroups. Factors significantly associated with pCR were PR status, grade, lymph node status, and BluePrint molecular subtyping, which had the strongest correlation.

Molecular subtyping improves diagnostic stratification of patients with primary breast cancer into prognostically defined risk groups.

Combined use of MammaPrint and a molecular subtyping profile (BluePrint) identifies disease subgroups with marked differences in long-term outcome and response to neo-adjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of molecular subtyping using MammaPrint and BluePrint in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC) treated at US institutions following National Comprehensive Cancer Network standard guidelines. Tumor samples were collected from stage 1-2B consecutively diagnosed BC patients (n = 373) who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy with an axillary staging procedure between 1992 and 2010 at two institutes (NorthShore University HealthSystem and Fox Chase Cancer Center) in the United States of America, with a median follow-up time of 9.5 years. MammaPrint low-risk patients had a 10-year DMFS of 96 % (95 %CI 92.8-99.4), while MammaPrint high-risk patients had a 10-year DMFS of 87 % (95 %CI 81.9-92.1) with a hazard ratio of 3.62 (95 %CI 1.38-9.50) (p = 0.005). Uni- and multivariate analyses included age, tumor size, grade, ER, and Her2; in multivariate analysis, MammaPrint reached near-significance (HR 3.01; p 0.08). When comparing BluePrint molecular subtyping with clinical stratification, the prognosis (10-year DMFS) was significantly different in 10-year DMFS between the different molecular subtypes (p < 0.001). This retrospective study with 10-year follow-up data provides valuable insight into prognosis of patients with primary BC comparing clinical with molecular subtyping. The BluePrint molecular stratification assay identifies patients with significantly different outcomes compared with standard clinical molecular stratification.

Application of a 70-Gene Expression Profile to Japanese Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: As data on using MammaPrint®, a 70-gene expression profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer, are limited in Japanese patients, we aimed to determine the gene profiles of Japanese patients using MammaPrint and to investigate its possible clinical application for selecting adjuvant treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 50 women treated surgically at our institution were examined. The MammaPrint results were compared with the St Gallen 2007 and intrinsic subtype risk categorizations. RESULTS: Of 38 cases judged to be at intermediate risk based on the St Gallen 2007 Consensus, 11 (29%) were in the high-risk group based on MammaPrint. 1 of the 30 luminal A-like tumors (3%) was judged as high risk based on MammaPrint results, whereas 7 of the 20 tumors (35%) categorized as luminal B-like or triple negative were in the low-risk group. There have been no recurrences to date in the MammaPrint group, and this is possibly attributable to most of the high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy that had been recommended on the basis of their MammaPrint results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that MammaPrint is applicable to Japanese patients and that it is of potential value in current clinical practice for devising individualized treatments.

Genomic classifier ColoPrint predicts recurrence in stage II colorectal cancer patients more accurately than clinical factors.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients with stage II colorectal cancer will experience a relapse. Current clinical-pathologic stratification factors do not allow clear identification of these high-risk patients. ColoPrint (Agendia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, http://www.agendia.com) is a gene expression classifier that distinguishes patients with low or high risk of disease relapse. METHODS: ColoPrint was developed using whole-genome expression data and validated in several independent validation cohorts. Stage II patients from these studies were pooled (n = 416), and ColoPrint was compared with clinical risk factors described in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2013 Guidelines for Colon Cancer. Median follow-up was 81 months. Most patients (70%) did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Risk of relapse (ROR) was defined as survival until first event of recurrence or death from cancer. RESULTS: In the pooled stage II data set, ColoPrint identified 63% of patients as low risk with a 5-year ROR of 10%, whereas high-risk patients (37%) had a 5-year ROR of 21%, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.16 (p = .004). This remained significant in a multivariate model that included number of lymph nodes retrieved and microsatellite instability. In the T3 microsatellite-stable subgroup (n = 301), ColoPrint classified 59% of patients as low risk with a 5-year ROR of 9.9%. High-risk patients (31%) had a 22.4% ROR (HR: 2.41; p = .005). In contrast, the NCCN clinical high-risk factors were unable to distinguish high- and low-risk patients (15% vs. 13% ROR; p = .55). CONCLUSION: ColoPrint significantly improved prognostic accuracy independent of microsatellite status or clinical variables, facilitating the identification of patients at higher risk who might be considered for additional treatment.

Molecular subtyping predicts pathologic tumor response in early-stage breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel plus capecitabine with or without trastuzumab chemotherapy.

The purpose of this study was to assess the correlation of the pathologic complete response (pCR) and near-complete pathologic response (npCR) between gene expression profiling using either the dataset of 150 genes as determined by BluePrint/MammaPrint versus PAM50 molecular subtyping. The samples were from patients with operable early-stage breast cancer prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy of capecitabine plus docetaxel, with or without trastuzumab. Molecular subtyping data were analyzed on samples from 122 patients enrolled in XeNA neoadjuvant trial. The biopsies were obtained as part of the original study where PAM50 assay was performed using custom-designed full genome 44,000 feature Agilent microarrays, and TP53 mutational analysis was performed on pretreatment tumor tissue using the AmpliChip TP53 assay. For the current study, clinical and pathological endpoints, TP53 mutation analysis and PAM50 results were collected through GEO at NCBI (GSE22358). MammaPrint and BluePrint outcomes were determined from the available gene expression data. The overall pCR plus npCR rate was 25% (30/122). Stratified by BluePrint/MammaPrint, patients of HER2 type had the best response (59%), while luminal A (7%) and B (9%) subtypes had the poorest. The pCR plus npCR rate in patients classified with PAM50 assay was 76% in HER2 type, 10% in luminal A type, and 5% in luminal B type. The pCR plus npCR rate [22/61 (36%)] among TP53-mutated patients was significantly higher than TP53 wild-type patients [7/54 (13%); P=0.012]. Concordance of BluePrint/MammaPrint with PAM50 molecular subtyping was only 59%. Regardless of the molecular subtype, for patient samples with concordant BluePrint/MammaPrint and PAM50 data, the pCR plus npCR rate in TP53 mutant samples was 17/39 (44%), whereas in patients whose tumors were TP53 wild type, it was 5/31 (16%). Molecular and intrinsic subtyping may provide predictive information for patients treated with docetaxel plus capecitabine±trastuzumab preoperatively, and these results need to be further evaluated. The differences between the two methodologies need clarification in a prospective manner and being compared to the standard IHC-FISH testing.

Chemosensitivity predicted by BluePrint 80-gene functional subtype and MammaPrint in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST).

PURPOSE: The purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response. METHODS: The study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2- patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients. CONCLUSIONS: BluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.

Molecular subtyping of early-stage breast cancer identifies a group of patients who do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term outcome (distant metastases-free survival [DMFS]) in patients with early-stage breast cancer using BluePrint and MammaPrint molecular subtyping versus clinical subtyping using immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization (IHC/FISH) for the determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2). Data were analyzed from 437 patients in four neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials. BluePrint and MammaPrint outcomes were determined from 44K Agilent arrays, the I-SPY 1 data portal, or Affymetrix U133A arrays. The pCR rate differed substantially among BluePrint molecular subgroups: 6 % in Luminal A-type, 10 % in Luminal B-type, 47 % in HER2-type, and 37 % in Basal-type patients. In the Luminal A-type group (n = 90; including seven HER2-positive patients and eight triple-negative patients by IHC/FISH), the 5-year DMFS rate was 93 %. The pCR rate provided no prognostic information, suggesting these patients may not benefit from chemotherapy. Forty-three of 107 (40 %) HER2-positive patients were classified as Luminal-type by BluePrint and may have lower response rates to targeted therapy. Molecular subtyping identified 90 of 435 (21 %) patients as Luminal A-type (BluePrint Luminal-type/MammaPrint Low Risk) with excellent survival. The pCR rate provided no prognostic information. Molecular subtyping can improve the stratification of patients in the neoadjuvant setting: Luminal A-type (MammaPrint Low Risk) patients have a good prognosis with excellent survival and do not seem to benefit from chemotherapy. We observed marked benefit in response and DMFS to neoadjuvant treatment in patients subtyped as HER2-type and Basal-type. BluePrint with MammaPrint molecular subtyping helps to improve prognostic estimation and the choice of therapy versus IHC/FISH.

Comparison of molecular subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to local clinical subtyping in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To compare breast cancer subtyping with the three centrally assessed microarray-based assays BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint with locally assessed clinical subtyping using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). METHODS: BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint were all performed on fresh tumor samples. Microarray analysis was performed at Agendia Laboratories, blinded for clinical and pathological data. IHC/FISH assessments were performed according to local practice at each institution; estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) assessments were performed on 132 samples, and Ki-67 on 79 samples. RESULTS: The concordance between BluePrint and IHC/FISH subtyping was 94 % for the Luminal-type, 95 % for the HER2-type, and 94 % for the Basal-type subgroups. The concordance of BluePrint with subtyping using mRNA single gene readout (TargetPrint) was 96 % for the Luminal-type, 97 % for the HER2-type, and 98 % for the Basal-type subgroups. The concordance for substratification into Luminal A and B using MammaPrint and Ki-67 was 68 %. The concordance between TargetPrint and IHC/FISH was 97 % for ER, 80 % for PR, and 95 % for HER2. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of multigene assays such as TargetPrint, BluePrint, and MammaPrint may improve the clinical management of breast cancer patients. High discordance between Luminal A and B substratification based on MammaPrint versus locally assessed Ki-67 or grade indicates that chemotherapy decisions should not be based on the basis of Ki-67 readout or tumor grade alone. TargetPrint serves as a second opinion for those local pathology settings where high-quality standardization is harder to maintain.

Comparison of histopathological and gene expression-based typing of cancer of unknown primary.

For the clinical diagnosis and appropriate therapy of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP), biopsies of the tumor metastases are generally examined histopathologically and by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Gene expression profiling (GEP) is a new diagnostic technique that might further contribute to tumor specification. Biopsies of 43 CUP cases underwent a retrospective central histopathological and immunohistochemical review and centrally performed GEP using CupPrint(TM). Two samples could not be evaluated by IHC due to small biopsy size or loss of immunoreactivity. One of these and 17 other samples were not suited for GEP due to RNA degradation. In 13 out of the remaining 24 cases (54%), the same primary was proposed by IHC and GEP and was supported by the clinical findings, furthermore leading to the doubtless identification of the primary in four out of these. In seven cases, there was discordance between IHC and GEP, with the clinical picture being more in line with IHC in three and with GEP in four cases. Four cases had to remain undecided because the primary tumors suggested by IHC and GEP were not supported. In conclusion, overlap between IHC and GEP results and the clinical presentation was noted in the majority of those true CUP cases that were evaluable with both techniques. Therefore, GEP can be a complementary diagnostic technique assisting immunohistochemical profiling of cancer biopsies with unknown primary.