CDX2 is expressed in most colon cancers, but approximately 4% do not express this transcription factor. Lack of CDX2 expression marks a subset of cancers with a more aggressive natural history. ...Adjuvant chemotherapy primarily benefits patients with stage II CDX2-negative tumors.
During the past decade, disease-free survival among patients with stage III colon cancer has increased significantly owing to the introduction of new adjuvant chemotherapy regimens.
1
–
3
This therapeutic success, however, has not translated into longer disease-free survival among patients with earlier-stage (stage I or II) cancer.
4
The lack of simple, reliable criteria for the identification of patients with early-stage disease who are at high risk for relapse has made it difficult to identify patients in whom the hazards of multiagent chemotherapy may be offset by benefits with respect to disease-specific survival.
4
–
9
To address this problem, researchers have explored the . . .
Several multigene markers that predict relapse more accurately than classical clinicopathologic features have been developed. The 21-gene assay was developed specifically for patients with estrogen ...receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer, and has been shown to predict distant recurrence more accurately that classical clinicopathologic features in patients with ER-positive breast cancer and negative axillary nodes treated with adjuvant tamoxifen; validation studies in this population led to its approval as a diagnostic test. In a similar population, it also may be used to assess the benefit of adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy. Other validation studies indicate that it also predicts the risk of distant and local recurrence in other populations with ER-positive disease, including node-negative patients receiving no adjuvant therapy and patients with positive axillary nodes treated with doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy. The Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) is multicenter trial that integrates the 21-gene assay into the clinical decision-making process and is designed to refine the utility of the assay in clinical practice and to provide a resource for evaluating additional molecular markers as they are developed in the future.
Several gene-expression-based reference laboratory tests are now available for prognostication of patients diagnosed with breast cancer. For clinical oncologists, it is important to understand the ...clinical contexts for which these assays were developed in order to use them properly. This Review is aimed at providing a conceptual and technical overview of the steps involved in the development of gene-expression profiling-based prognostic assays. MammaPrint and Oncotype DX, two widely utilized assays, are compared with respect to differences in the clinical contexts for their development, technologies used, and clinical utilities with the aim of providing a guide to clinical oncologists for utilization of these assays.
TAILORx established the role of the 21-gene predictor of genetic risk in ascertaining treatment for women with hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast ...cancer. Clinical risk factors provided additional prognostic information for women with intermediate genetic risk.
To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast ...cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer.
ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing.
The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations.
The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.
Patients with early-stage estrogen-receptor–positive, node-negative breast cancer whose 21-gene Oncotype DX profile suggested a low risk of recurrence were safely treated with endocrine therapy alone ...and were spared exposure to adjuvant chemotherapy.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and in the United States, and it is the leading cause of death from cancer in women worldwide.
1
Prognostic factors for the recurrence of breast cancer at a distant site regardless of treatment include clinicopathologic features such as tumor size and grade and the number of axillary lymph nodes with metastasis.
2
Predictive factors that identify a benefit from specific therapies include the expression of the estrogen receptor and the progesterone receptor, which identifies patients who benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy,
3
and overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 . . .
Summary Background Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and ...overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response—ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is—for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. Findings We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·39–0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43–0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30–0·44; 0·36, 0·31–0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55–0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45–0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18–0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11–0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09–0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS ( R2 =0·03, 95% CI 0·00–0·25) and OS ( R2 =0·24, 0·00–0·70). Interpretation Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. Funding US Food and Drug Administration.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented ...in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.
Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting ...response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.
PDF
