Comparative survival analysis of multiparametric tests—when molecular tests disagree—A TEAM Pathology study
Abstract Multiparametric assays for risk stratification are widely used in the management of both node negative and node positive hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer. Recent data from multiple sources suggests that different tests may provide different risk estimates at the individual p...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/86050652dddb40c7bbae488c081d3af4 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Multiparametric assays for risk stratification are widely used in the management of both node negative and node positive hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer. Recent data from multiple sources suggests that different tests may provide different risk estimates at the individual patient level. The TEAM pathology study consists of 3284 postmenopausal ER+ve breast cancers treated with endocrine therapy Using genes comprising the following multi-parametric tests OncotypeDx®, Prosigna™ and MammaPrint® signatures were trained to recapitulate true assay results. Patients were then classified into risk groups and survival assessed. Whilst likelihood χ 2 ratios suggested limited value for combining tests, Kaplan–Meier and LogRank tests within risk groups suggested combinations of tests provided statistically significant stratification of potential clinical value. Paradoxically whilst Prosigna-trained results stratified Oncotype-trained subgroups across low and intermediate risk categories, only intermediate risk Prosigna-trained cases were further stratified by Oncotype-trained results. Both Oncotype-trained and Prosigna-trained results further stratified MammaPrint-trained low risk cases, and MammaPrint-trained results also stratified Oncotype-trained low and intermediate risk groups but not Prosigna-trained results. Comparisons between existing multiparametric tests are challenging, and evidence on discordance between tests in risk stratification presents further dilemmas. Detailed analysis of the TEAM pathology study suggests a complex inter-relationship between test results in the same patient cohorts which requires careful evaluation regarding test utility. Further prognostic improvement appears both desirable and achievable. |
|---|