Prognostic value of EndoPredict test in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative primary breast cancer screened for the randomized, double-blind, phase III UNIRAD trial.

EndoPredict breast cancer endocrine therapy prognostic biomarker risk stratification

Journal

ESMO open
ISSN: 2059-7029
Titre abrégé: ESMO Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101690685

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 28 11 2023
revised: 15 03 2024
accepted: 04 04 2024
medline: 2 5 2024
pubmed: 2 5 2024
entrez: 1 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the multigene EndoPredict test in prospectively collected data of patients screened for the randomized, double-blind, phase III UNIRAD trial, which evaluated the addition of everolimus to adjuvant endocrine therapy in high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer. Patients were classified into low or high risk according to the EPclin score, consisting of a 12-gene molecular score combined with tumor size and nodal status. Association of the EPclin score with disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The independent prognostic added value of EPclin score was tested in a multivariate Cox model after adjusting on tumor characteristics. EndoPredict test results were available for 768 patients: 663 patients classified as EPclin high risk (EPCH) and 105 patients as EPclin low risk (EPCL). Median follow-up was 70 months (range 1-172 months). For the 429 EPCH randomized patients, there was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms. The 60-month relapse rate for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 0% and 7%, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) supposing continuous EPclin score was 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.5, P < 0.0001]. This prognostic effect remained significant when assessed in a Cox model adjusting on tumor size, number of positive nodes and tumor grade (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09-2.13, P = 0.0141). The 60-month DMFS for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 100% and 94%, respectively (adjusted HR 8.10, 95% CI 1.1-59.1, P < 0.0001). The results confirm the value of EPclin score as an independent prognostic parameter in node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer patients receiving standard adjuvant treatment. EPclin score can be used to identify patients at higher risk of recurrence who may warrant additional systemic treatments.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the multigene EndoPredict test in prospectively collected data of patients screened for the randomized, double-blind, phase III UNIRAD trial, which evaluated the addition of everolimus to adjuvant endocrine therapy in high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS METHODS
Patients were classified into low or high risk according to the EPclin score, consisting of a 12-gene molecular score combined with tumor size and nodal status. Association of the EPclin score with disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The independent prognostic added value of EPclin score was tested in a multivariate Cox model after adjusting on tumor characteristics.
RESULTS RESULTS
EndoPredict test results were available for 768 patients: 663 patients classified as EPclin high risk (EPCH) and 105 patients as EPclin low risk (EPCL). Median follow-up was 70 months (range 1-172 months). For the 429 EPCH randomized patients, there was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms. The 60-month relapse rate for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 0% and 7%, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) supposing continuous EPclin score was 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.5, P < 0.0001]. This prognostic effect remained significant when assessed in a Cox model adjusting on tumor size, number of positive nodes and tumor grade (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09-2.13, P = 0.0141). The 60-month DMFS for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 100% and 94%, respectively (adjusted HR 8.10, 95% CI 1.1-59.1, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The results confirm the value of EPclin score as an independent prognostic parameter in node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer patients receiving standard adjuvant treatment. EPclin score can be used to identify patients at higher risk of recurrence who may warrant additional systemic treatments.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38692082
pii: S2059-7029(24)01211-0
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103443
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

103443

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Disclosure FPL: advisor for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, GILEAD, GSK, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, MSD, Myriad, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche; funding: MSD, Myriad, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer. FD: advisor for Daichi, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly, MSD; travel/expenses: Daichi, Novartis, Pfizer. PC: advisor for Pfizer, Lilly; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, BMS. JG: advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MC: advisor for Novartis, Sandoz, Accord, Sanofi, Lilly, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo; consulting fees: Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo; travel//expenses: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche. ACHB: advisor for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis Onco, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, MSD. SG: advisor for Eisai, Lilly; funding: Merck, AstraZeneca; travel/expenses: Lilly. PB: advisor for Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Astellas, Novartis, Gilead, Bayer; travel/expenses: BMS, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, MSD, Ipsen, Merck. AM: advisor for Pfizer; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Lilly. MS: travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MLT: consulting fees: Myriad Genetics. JB: funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Clovis Onco; travel/expenses: Pfizer. FA: stock and other ownership interests: PEGASCY; funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, Daiichi; travel/expenses: Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca. TB: advisor for Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, MSD; funding: Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Auteurs

F Penault-Llorca (F)

Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer Jean Perrin, Imagerie Moléculaire et Stratégies Théranostiques, Université Clermont Auvergne, UMR 1240 INSERM-UCA, Clermont Ferrand. Electronic address: Frederique.PENAULT-LLORCA@clermont.unicancer.fr.

F Dalenc (F)

Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT, Toulouse.

S Chabaud (S)

Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon.

P Cottu (P)

Institut Curie, Paris.

D Allouache (D)

Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France.

D Cameron (D)

Western General Hospital, Edinburg, UK.

J Grenier (J)

Institut Sainte Catherine, Avignon.

L Venat Bouvet (L)

CHU Dupuytren, Limoges, France.

A Jegannathen (A)

Royal Stoke Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.

M Campone (M)

Institut de cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain & Angers.

M Debled (M)

Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux.

A-C Hardy-Bessard (AC)

Centre CARIO-HPCA, Plérin.

S Giacchetti (S)

APHP Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris.

P Barthelemy (P)

Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe, Strasbourg.

L Kaluzinski (L)

Centre Hospitalier Cotentin, Cherbourg en Cotentin.

A Mailliez (A)

Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille.

M-A Mouret-Reynier (MA)

Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer Jean Perrin, Imagerie Moléculaire et Stratégies Théranostiques, Université Clermont Auvergne, UMR 1240 INSERM-UCA, Clermont Ferrand.

E Legouffe (E)

Centre Oncogard, Nîmes.

A Cayre (A)

Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer Jean Perrin, Imagerie Moléculaire et Stratégies Théranostiques, Université Clermont Auvergne, UMR 1240 INSERM-UCA, Clermont Ferrand.

M Martinez (M)

Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse.

C Delbaldo (C)

Hôpital Diaconesses, Paris.

D Mollon-Grange (D)

Hôpital Laennec, Quimper, France.

E J Macaskill (EJ)

Ninewells Hospital, Dundee.

M Sephton (M)

Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK.

L Stefani (L)

Centre Hospitalier Annecy, Pringy.

B Belgadi (B)

Centre Hospitalier Montélimar, Montélimar, France.

M Winter (M)

Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK.

H Orfeuvre (H)

Centre Hospitalier Fleyriat, Bourg-en-Bresse.

M Lacroix-Triki (M)

Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

H Bonnefoi (H)

Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux.

J Bliss (J)

The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.

J-L Canon (JL)

Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium.

J Lemonnier (J)

UNICANCER, Paris, France.

F Andre (F)

Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

T Bachelot (T)

Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon.

Classifications MeSH