Assessment of Risk Recurrence: Adjuvant Online, OncotypeDx & Mammaprint

Similar documents
8/8/2011. PONDERing the Need to TAILOR Adjuvant Chemotherapy in ER+ Node Positive Breast Cancer. Overview

The Oncotype DX Assay in the Contemporary Management of Invasive Early-stage Breast Cancer

Is Gene Expression Profiling the Best Method for Selecting Systemic Therapy in EBC? Norman Wolmark Miami March 8, 2013

Rationale For & Design of TAILORx. Joseph A. Sparano, MD Albert Einstein College of Medicine Montefiore-Einstein Cancer Center Bronx, New York

Genomic Profiling of Tumors and Loco-Regional Recurrence

She counts on your breast cancer expertise at the most vulnerable time of her life.

30 years of progress in cancer research

The Oncotype DX Assay A Genomic Approach to Breast Cancer

Multigene Testing in NCCN Breast Cancer Treatment Guidelines, v1.2011

Role of Genomic Profiling in (Minimally) Node Positive Breast Cancer

Oncotype DX testing in node-positive disease

TAILORx: Established and Potential Implications for Clinical Practice

Seigo Nakamura,M.D.,Ph.D.

The TAILORx Trial: A review of the data and implications for practice

The Current Status and the Future Prospects of Multigene testing in Europe

Harmesh Naik, MD. Hope Cancer Clinic

Postoperative Adjuvant Chemotherapies. Stefan Aebi Luzerner Kantonsspital

Profili di espressione genica

Oncotype DX reveals the underlying biology that changes treatment decisions 37% of the time

BREAST CANCER. Dawn Hershman, MD MS. Medicine and Epidemiology Co-Director, Breast Program HICCC Columbia University Medical Center.

III Congreso Internacional de Oncologia del Interior XII Jornadas de Oncologia del Interior Cordoba Argentina. Farmacogenomica y Cancer de Mama

Reliable Evaluation of Prognostic & Predictive Genomic Tests

Genomic platforms in breast cancer

NSABP Pivotal Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: Historical Perspective, Recent Results and Future Directions

Molecular Characterization of Breast Cancer: The Clinical Significance

GENOMIC TESTS FOR BREAST CANCER: FACT, MYTH, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN

Evolving Insights into Adjuvant Chemotherapy. Joyce O Shaughnessy, MD Baylor Sammons Cancer Center Texas Oncology US Oncology

Adjuvan Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

Case Study Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Assay

Biologic Subtypes and Prognos5c Factors. Claudine Isaacs, MD Georgetown University

The Latest Research: Hormonal Therapies

Hormone therapyduration: Can weselectthosepatientswho benefitfromtreatmentextension?

High False-Negative Rate of HER2 Quantitative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction of the Oncotype DX

OVERVIEW OF GENE EXPRESSION-BASED TESTS IN EARLY BREAST CANCER

Manejo do câncer de mama RH+ na adjuvância: o que há de novo?

Evolving Insights into Adjuvant Chemotherapy. Joyce O Shaughnessy, MD Baylor Sammons Cancer Center Texas Oncology US Oncology

Considerations in Adjuvant Chemotherapy. Joyce O Shaughnessy, MD Baylor Sammons Cancer Center Texas Oncology US Oncology

Comparison of prognostic signatures for ER positive breast cancer in TransATAC:

What It Takes to Get Incorporation Into Guidelines and Reimbursement for Advanced Cancer Diagnostics: Lessons from Oncotype DX

THE 21-GENE RECURRENCE SCORE: BEATSON WEST OF SCOTLAND CANCER CENTRE EXPERIENCE. Dr Husam Marashi 03/02/2017

Extended Hormonal Therapy

Breast Cancer Heterogeneity

William J. Gradishar MD

Kathy Albain, MD. Chemotherapy in Luminal Breast Cancer: Who Benefits? Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine

38 years old, premenopausal, had L+snbx. Pathology: IDC Gr.II T-1.9cm N+2/4sn ER+100%st, PR+60%st, Her2-neg, KI %

Gene Signatures in Breast Cancer: Moving Beyond ER, PR, and HER2? Lisa A. Carey, M.D. University of North Carolina USA

Making Understanding Molecular Profiles Less Painful. Presenter Disclosure Information

New Molecular Classifications of Breast Cancer

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (essentials in ER positive early breast cancer)

Sesiones interhospitalarias de cáncer de mama. Revisión bibliográfica 4º trimestre 2015

Profili Genici e Personalizzazione del trattamento adiuvante nel carcinoma mammario G. RICCIARDI

Advances in Breast Cancer ASCO 2018

11th Annual Population Health Colloquium. Stan Skrzypczak, MS, MBA Sr. Director, Marketing Genomic Health, Inc. March 15, 2011

Oncotype DX MM /01/2008. HMO; PPO; QUEST 03/01/2014 Section: Other/Miscellaneous Place(s) of Service: Office

Breast cancer classification: beyond the intrinsic molecular subtypes

Cancer Biomarkers, Clinical Trials, and New Treatment Options. Joseph A. Sparano, MD

We are IntechOpen, the world s leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists. International authors and editors

Morphological and Molecular Typing of breast Cancer

Session thématisée Les Innovations diagnostiques en cancérologie

Medical Policy. Description. Related Policies. Policy. Effective Date January 1, 2015 Original Policy Date December 1, 2005

Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Carol Tweed, M.D. Anne Arundel Medical Center DeCesaris Cancer Institute Annapolis, MD

Modern classification of breast cancer-should we stick with morphology or convert to molecular profiles?

Update on New Perspectives in Endocrine-Sensitive Breast Cancer. James R. Waisman, MD

CARCINOMA DELLA MAMMELLA La scelta del trattamento adiuvante: utilità clinica dei tests genomici

Section: Genetic Testing Last Reviewed Date: March Policy No: 42 Effective Date: June 1, 2014

The Neoadjuvant Model as a Translational Tool for Drug and Biomarker Development in Breast Cancer

Oncotype DX tools User Guide

UK Interdisciplinary Breast Cancer Symposium. Should lobular phenotype be considered when deciding treatment? Michael J Kerin

ISPOR 4 th Asia Pacific Conference IP2 Gilberto de Lima Lopes

EARLY STAGE BREAST CANCER ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY. Dr. Carlos Garbino

OPTIMAL ENDOCRINE THERAPY IN EARLY BREAST CANCER

Biomarkers for HER2-directed Therapies : Past Failures and Future Perspectives

Breast cancer: Molecular STAGING classification and testing. Korourian A : AP,CP ; MD,PHD(Molecular medicine)

Emerging Approaches for (Neo)Adjuvant Therapy for ER+ Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer Assays of Genetic Expression in Tumor Tissue

Best of San Antonio 2008

Endocrine Therapy in Premenopausal Breast Cancer. Joyce O Shaughnessy, MD Baylor Sammons Cancer Center Texas Oncology, PA US Oncology

Current Status and Future Development of Tools for Prognosis and Prediction - USA

MEDICAL POLICY. SUBJECT: GENETIC ASSAY OF TUMOR TISSUE TO DETERMINE PROGNOSIS OF BREAST CANCER (OncotypeDX TM, MammaPrint )

Harmesh Naik, MD. Hope Cancer Clinic PERSONALIZED CANCER TREATMENT USING LATEST IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Prosigna BREAST CANCER PROGNOSTIC GENE SIGNATURE ASSAY

Prosigna BREAST CANCER PROGNOSTIC GENE SIGNATURE ASSAY

Advances in Breast Cancer

Carcinome du sein Biologie moléculaire. Thomas McKee Service de Pathologie Clinique Genève

Clinical Policy Title: Breast cancer index genetic testing

Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy: How Long is Long Enough?

Contemporary Classification of Breast Cancer

From bio-guided to personalized oncology

What is new in HR+ Breast Cancer? Olivia Pagani Breast Unit and Institute of oncology of Southern Switzerland

Adjuvant Systemic Therapy In Early Brest Cancer

Session II: Academic Research in Breast Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities Robert L. Comis, MD ECOG-ACRIN Group Co-Chair

Giuseppe Viale for the BIG 1 98 Collaborative and International Breast Cancer Study Groups

Lecture 5. Primary systemic therapy: clinical and biological endpoints

The 21 Gene Oncotype DX Assay and The NCI-Sponsored TAILORx Trial. Steven Shak Chief Medical Officer Genomic Health October 4, 2007

MammaPrint, the story of the 70-gene profile

MammaPrint Improving treatment decisions in breast cancer Support and Involvement of EU

Breast Cancer: Chemotherapy and Novel Agents

Should we still be performing IHC on all sentinel nodes?

A new way of looking at breast cancer tumour biology

Genomic Profiling in Early Stage Breast Cancer. James V. Pellicane, MD, FACS Director of Breast Oncology Bon Secours Cancer Institute Richmond, VA

Transcription:

Assessment of Risk Recurrence: Adjuvant Online, OncotypeDx & Mammaprint William J. Gradishar, MD Professor of Medicine Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University

Classical Prognostic/Predictive Factors Factor Prognostic? Predictive? TNM Stage Yes No N of ALNs Yes No Size of primary Yes No Tumor grade Yes Yes ER/PgR Yes Yes Mitotic rate Yes? HER2? Yes Patient Age Yes Yes

Genomic Profiling in Breast Cancer Treatment Do genomic profiles assist in assigning baseline prognosis independent of classic prognostic factors? Do genomic profiles provide predictive information independent of classic predictive factors?

Adjuvant! Online www.adjuvantonline.com Estimates: Risk of cancer-related mortality or relapse without therapy Risk reduction with therapy Risk of side effects from therapy Limitations Prognostic factors not all inclusive HER2 status not included Small tumors not well characterized Available at: http://www.adjuvantonline.com

Oncotype Dx RT-PCR Multiplex Assay using formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue sections Commercially available Centralized Testing 21 Gene Recurrence Score for Node Negative ER+ (IHC) Patients Initial study using NSABP tissues showed strong positive and negative predictive value for disease recurrence in patients treated with tamoxifen alone and with CMF chemotherapy Recent ASCO 2005 presentation showed strong stand alone prognostic value in untreated patients Of the 21 genes, the ER and Ki-67 have the most predictive power (Bcl2 augments ER) Recent evidence is emerging that ER mrna measurement may outperform IHC in correctly predicting response to tamoxifen and AI s.

PROLIFERATION Ki-67 STK15 Survivin Cyclin B1 MYBL2 INVASION Stromolysin 3 Cathepsin L2 HER2 GRB7 HER2 21 Gene Recurrence Score (RS) Assay 16 Cancer and 5 Reference Genes From 3 Studies ESTROGEN ER PR Bcl2 SCUBE2 GSTM1 CD68 REFERENCE Beta-actin GAPDH RPLPO GUS TFRC RS = + 0.47 x HER2 Group Score - 0.34 x ER Group Score + 1.04 x Proliferation Group Score + 0.10 x Invasion Group Score + 0.05 x CD68-0.08 x GSTM1 BAG1-0.07 x BAG1 Category RS (0 100) Low risk RS < 18 Int risk RS 18 and < 31 High risk RS 31

21 Gene Recurrence Score (RS) Assay-NSABP B-14 Prospective Clinical Validation Study Objective Validate Recurrence Score as predictor of distant recurrence in N-, ER+, tamoxifen-treated patients Placebo Not Eligible B-14 Randomized Registered Tamoxifen Eligible Tamoxifen Eligible Pre-specified 21 gene assay, algorithm, endpoints, analysis plan Blinded laboratory analysis of three 10 µ sections Paik et al, NEJM 2004

B-14 Results DRFS Low, Intermediate and High RS Groups Risk Group % of 10-yr Rate 95% CI Patients Recurren Low (RS<18) 51% 6.8%4.0%, 9.6% Intermediate (RS 18-30)22%14.3% 8.3%, 20.3% High (RS 31) 27%30.5%23.6%, 37.4% Test for the 10-year DRFS comparison between the Low and High risk groups: p<0.00001 Paik et al, NEJM 2004

B-14 Results DRFS Low, Intermediate and High RS Groups DRFS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Paik et al, NEJM 2004 Low Risk (RS <18) Intermediate Risk (RS 18-30) High Risk (RS ³ 31) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Years 338 pts 149 pts 181 pts

Tamoxifen Benefit and 21 Gene Recurrence Score (RS) Assay NSABP B-14 Tam Benefit Study in N-, ER+ Pts Design Randomized Placebo Eligible Tam Eligible Objective Determine whether the 21 gene RS assay captures: 1) prognosis 2) response to tamoxifen 3) both

B-14 Benefit of Tam By Recurrence Score Risk Category 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 DRFS 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Low Risk (RS<18) N 171 142 Years 1.0 DRFS Int Risk (RS 18-30) Placebo Placebo Tamoxifen Tamoxifen 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.6 0.4 0.2 N 85 69 Years 0.8 DRFS 0.6 0.4 High Risk (RS 31) Interaction p=0.06 Paik et al SABCS 2005 0.2 0.0 Placebo Tamoxifen N 99 79 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Years

Chemotherapy Benefit and 21 Gene Recurrence Score (RS) Assay NSABP B-20 Chemo Benefit Study in N-, ER+ Pts Design Tam + MF Randomized Tam + CMF Tam Objective Determine the magnitude of the chemotherapy benefit as a function of 21 gene Recurrence Score assay

Benefit of Chemotherapy Based on RS DRFS 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Low Risk (RS<18) Tam + Chemo Tam N Events 218 11 135 5 p = 0.76 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Years 10 yr 96% 95% DRFS 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Int Risk (RS 18-30) Tam + Chemo Tam N Events 89 9 45 8 p = 0.71 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Years 10 yr 89% 90% Paik et al SABCS 2005 DRFS 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 High Risk (RS 31) Tam + Chemo Tam N Events 117 13 47 18 p = 0.001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Years 10yr 88% 60%

Important Caveat Likely that many patients in B-14 & B-20 had microscopic nodal involvement as more intense scrutiny of nodes was not routinely done!!

ASCO Guidelines The Oncotype DX tumor marker test is recommended for patients with node-negative breast cancer that is ERpositive and/or PR-positive, which is the case for 50 percent of breast cancer patients. The test measures multiple genes at once to estimate the risk of breast cancer recurrence. Patients with a low recurrence score may be able to receive only hormone therapy and avoid chemotherapy. Sparing patients from unnecessary treatment may not only improve their quality of life, but it also will reduce overall health care costs. JCO 11.20.07

Original E2197: Study Design and Results ASCO -Goldstein, Abstract #526

Objectives in E-2197 Genomic Analysis General: Improve ability to identify individuals who benefit from chemotherapy, or specific chemotherapy regimens that vary in duration or drugs used Specific: 1. To evaluate the prognostic utility of 21 Gene Assay RS in pts with HR-Pos disease treated with adjuvant chemotherapy 2. To perform an exploratory analysis for individual genes associated with prognosis in patients with HR-Pos and HR-Neg disease treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (analysis ongoing) 3. To perform an exploratory analysis to identify individual genes associated with differential sensitivity to AC versus AT (analysis ongoing) ASCO - Goldstein, Abstract #526

Group RS HR-Pos* HR-Neg* Low < 18 198 (46%) 1 (0%) Intermediate 18-30 142 (30%) 2 (1%) High 31 125 (24%) 308 (99%) RS Distribution for HR-Pos Disease Similar to Prior Studies Including Only Node-Negative Disease ASCO - Abstract #526

Outcomes by Nodal Status All of these patients received chemotherapy (either AC or AT) ASCO - Abstract #526

Outcomes by Recurrence Score All of these patients received chemotherapy (either AC or AT) ASCO - Abstract #526

5-Year Event Rates by Nodal Status & RS Recurrence Rates Are Very Low (< 5%) if the RS < 18 Irrespective of Axillary Lymph Node Status RS Nodes RFI (%) DFS (%) OS (%) Low <18 Neg 96 93 95 Pos 95 91 97 Neg 86 87 97 Int 18-30 Pos 87 77 86 High 31 Neg 87 80 92 Pos 75 61 72 ASCO - Abstract #526

Phase III SWOG 8814 (TBCI 0100) Postmenopausal, N+, ER+ RANDOMIZE n = 1477 tamoxifen x 5 yrs (n = 361) CAF x 6, with CAF x 6, then concurrent tam tamoxifen (n = 550) (n = 566) Superior Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS) over 10 Years Albain, et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005

SWOG 8814/TBCI 0100 Sample Size for This Analysis Patients with samples - 666 (45% of parent trial) RT-PCR obtained - 601 (90%) Tamoxifen alone 148 CAFT (concurrent) 234 CAF-T (sequential) 219 Final sample for primary analysis 148 + 219 = 367 (40% of parent trial)

Outcomes in RS Subset Mirror Those Reported in Main Trial: Superiority of CAF-T Disease-free survival 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Disease-Free Survival Stratified log-rank p-value = 0.054 at 10 years (adjusted for nodal status) Tamoxifen (n=148, 63 events) CAF-T (n=219, 74 events) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Years since registration

Comparative Distribution of RS SWOG 8814: Less Low RS, More High RS Study Low Risk Int. Risk High Risk (RS < 18) (RS 18-30) (RS 31) NSABP B14* 51% 22% 27% NSABP B20* 54% 21% 25% Kaiser controls* 56% 19% 25% ECOG 2197** 49% 31% 20% SWOG 8814*** 40% 28% 32% *node(-): Paik, et al. NEJM 2004 & JCO 2006; Habel, et al. Breast Ca Res Treat 2006 **node- or 1-3+: Goldstein, et al. Proc ASCO 2007 ***node+, postmenopausal: this analysis - no difference by age

SWOG 8814/TBCI 0100 21-Gene Recurrence Score is Prognostic for DFS and OS in Tamoxifen Arm Disease-Free Survival by Risk Group (tamoxifen alone) Disease-free survival 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Stratified log-rank p = 0.017 at 10 years Low RS <18 (n=55) Intermediate RS 18-30 (n=46) High RS 31 (n=47) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Years since registration Overall Survival 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Overall Survival by Risk Group (tamoxifen alone) Stratified log-rank p = 0.003 at 10 years Low RS <18 (n=55) Intermediate RS 18-30 (n=46) High RS 31 (n=47) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Years since registration 10-yr: 60%, 49%, 43% 10-yr: 77%, 68%, 51%

No benefit to CAF over time if low RS Strong benefit if high RS Disease-Free Survival by Treatment Disease-free survival 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Low risk (RS < 18) Stratified log-rank p = 0.97 at 10 years Tamoxifen (n=55, 15 events) CAF-T (n=91, 26 events) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Years since registration Disease-Free Survival by Treatment Disease-Free Survival by Treatment Disease-free survival 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 High risk (RS 31) Stratified log-rank p = 0.033 at 10 years Tamoxifen (n=47, 26 events) CAF-T (n=71, 28 events) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Disease-free survival 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Intermediate risk (RS 18-30) Stratified log-rank p = 0.48 at 10 years Tamoxifen (n=46, 22 events) CAF-T (n=57, 20 events) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Years since registration Years since registration

SWOG 8814/TBCI 0100 Ten-Year DFS Point Estimates (95% CI) Recurrence Score Risk Category Tamoxifen Alone CAF followed by tamoxifen Low (< 18)* 60% (40%, 76%) Intermediate (18-30) 49% (32%, 63%) High ( 31) 43% (28%, 57%) 64% (50%, 75%) 63% (48%, 74%) 55% (40%, 67%) *40% event rate over 10 years and resistance to CAF

Comparison of CAF-T to Tamoxifen Alone DFS hazard ratios adjusted for nodal status Overall trial Entire RS sample Trial Subset Low RS Intermediate RS High RS Chemotherapy benefit No chemotherapy benefit 0.5 1 1.5 2 Hazard Ratio

CAF Benefit Greatest in Higher RS for Both Nodal Subsets, with No Benefit in Lower RS Five-Year Probability of Death or Disease Recurrence Linear model for Recurrence Score and interactions with treatment Five Year Probability of an Event 0.2.4.6.8 1 Tam, 4+ nodes (n=54) CAF-T, 4+ nodes (n=86) Tam, 1-3 nodes (n=94) CAF-T, 1-3 nodes (n=133) Chemo benefit 4+ nodes Chemo benefit 1-3 nodes 0 20 40 60 80 100 Recurrence Score

The RS is Also Predictive for Overall Survival in SWOG 8814/TBCI 0100 No benefit to CAF in low RS in first 5 years (HR 1.05) or over entire time period (HR 1.18) Strong impact of CAF in high RS first 5 years HR 0.43 (0.21, 0.90) and over entire period HR 0.56 (0.31, 1.01) 10-year estimates: Tam 51% (35%, 65%) CAF-T 68% (51%, 79%) Overall survival 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Overall Survival by Treatment Stratified log-rank test p = 0.027 at 10 years Tamoxifen (n=47, 22 deaths) CAF-T (n=71, 20 deaths) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Years since registration High risk (RS 31)

70 Gene Assay 70 gene assay predicts for distant recurrence in patients with node-negative breast cancer Requires frozen tissue Has not been validated as a predictor for outcome from hormonal therapy or chemotherapy MINDACT Trial (Microarray In Node negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy) trial is ongoing

CHEMOTHERAPY RANDOMIZE CHEMO YES or NO (TailorX) RANDOMIZE FOR the decision-making tool (Mindact) ENDOCRINE THERAPY