Long-term impact of the 70-gene signature on breast cancer outcome

50Citations
Citations of this article
84Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Several studies have validated the prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature (MammaPrintR), but long-term outcome prediction of these patients has not been previously reported. The follow-up of the consecutively treated cohort of 295 patients (<53 years) with invasive breast cancer (T1-2N0-1M0; n = 151 N0, n = 144 N1) diagnosed between 1984 and 1995, in which the 70-gene signature was previously validated, was updated. The median follow-up for this series is now extended to 18.5 years. A significant difference is seen in long-term distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) for the patients with a low- and a high-risk 70-gene signature (DMFS p < 0.0001), as well as separately for node-negative (DMFS p < 0.0001) and node-positive patients (DMFS p = 0.0004). The 25-year hazard ratios (HRs) for all patients for DMFS and OS were 3.1 (95 % CI 2.02-4.86) and 2.9 (95 % CI 1.90-4.28), respectively. The HRs for DMFS and OS were largest in the first 5 years after diagnosis: 9.6 (95 % CI 4.2-22.1) and 11.3 (95 % CI 3.5-36.4), respectively. The 25-year HRs in the subgroup of node-negative patients for DMFS and OS were 4.57 (95 % CI 2.31-9.04) and 4.73 (95 % CI 2.46-9.07), respectively, and for node-positive patients for DMFS and OS were 2.24 (95 % CI 1.25-4.00) and 1.83 (95 % CI 1.07-3.11), respectively. The 70-gene signature remains prognostic at longer follow-up in patients <53 years of age with stage I and II breast cancer. The 70-gene signature's strongest prognostic power is seen in the first 5 years after diagnosis. © 2014 The Author(s).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Drukker, C. A., Van Tinteren, H., Schmidt, M. K., Rutgers, E. J. T., Bernards, R., Van De Vijver, M. J., & Van’t Veer, L. J. (2014). Long-term impact of the 70-gene signature on breast cancer outcome. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 143(3), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2831-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free