Gene expression profiles in clinically T1-2N0 ER+HER2− breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy: their added value in case sentinel lymph node biopsy is not performed
Purpose Omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer treatment results in patients with unknown positive nodal status and potential risk for systemic undertreatment. This study aimed to investigate whether gene expression profiles (GEPs) can lower this risk in cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Breast cancer research and treatment 2024-01, Vol.203 (1), p.103-110 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 110 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 103 |
container_title | Breast cancer research and treatment |
container_volume | 203 |
creator | van Roozendaal, L. M. Vane, M. L. G. Colier, E. Strobbe, L. J. A. de Boer, M. Sonke, G. Van Maaren, M. C. Smidt, M. L. |
description | Purpose
Omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer treatment results in patients with unknown positive nodal status and potential risk for systemic undertreatment. This study aimed to investigate whether gene expression profiles (GEPs) can lower this risk in cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer patients treated with BCT.
Methods
Patients were included if diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 with cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer, treated with BCT and SLNB, and in whom GEP was applied. Adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations based on clinical risk status (Dutch breast cancer guideline of 2020 versus PREDICT v2.1) with and without knowledge on SLNB outcome were compared to GEP outcome. We examined missing adjuvant chemotherapy indications, and the number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Results
Of 3585 patients, 2863 (79.9%) had pN0 and 722 (20.1%) pN + disease. Chemotherapy was recommended in 1354 (37.8% guideline-2020) and 1888 patients (52.7% PREDICT). Eliminating SLNB outcome (
n
= 722) resulted in omission of chemotherapy recommendation in 475 (35.1% guideline-2020) and 412 patients (21.8% PREDICT). GEP revealed genomic high risk in 126 (26.5% guideline-2020) and 82 patients (19.9% PREDICT) in case of omitted chemotherapy recommendation in the absence of SLNB. Extrapolated to the whole group, this concerns 3.5% and 2.3%, respectively, resulting in the need for 28–44 GEPs to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Conclusion
If no SLNB is performed, clinical risk status according to the guideline of 2020 and PREDICT predicts a very low risk for systemic undertreatment. The number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for undertreatment does not justify its standard use. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10549-023-07128-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10771349</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A778543639</galeid><sourcerecordid>A778543639</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-bc1b9f2758c874c098ec87b7ab0bfddc0f7e050d1de6c8c2f8cca7f3f67dc08f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kt1qFDEUxwdR7Fp9AS8kIIggU5PMRya9kVLWVigKpV6HTObMTko2GZPM6r6B176PL-OTmO2ubVdEcpGP8zv_k5P8s-w5wUcEY_Y2EFyVPMe0yDEjtMnpg2xGKlbkjBL2MJthUrO8bnB9kD0J4RpjzBnmj7ODgjFe0obPsp9nYAHBt9FDCNpZNHrXawMBaYuU0VYracwaXZGcfsRofvnmfH5Jf33_gVoPMkSkpFXg0SijBhsDiuk4Qoe-6jjsmFw5G8CvtF2gOICX4_p4s9Aeya5L7EqaCW4KygAoJB1twSCzXo4Dsq4D1Go3hjXSIW0jGsH3zi-he5o96qUJ8Gw3H2af38-vTs_zi09nH05PLnJV0TLmrSIt7ymrGtWwUmHeQFq0TLa47btO4Z4BrnBHOqhVo2jfKCVZX_Q1S8GmLw6zd1vdcWpTWZVu6KURo9dL6dfCSS32I1YPYuFWgmDGSFHypPB6p-DdlwlCFEsdFBgjLbgpCNqwgpa8rEhCX_6FXrvJ29SfoJwQQmvOmztqIQ0IbXuXCquNqDhhrKnKoi42ZY_-QaXRwVKnb4HNX-8nvLqXMIA0cQjOTDF5I-yDdAsq70Lw0N--BsFiY0-xtadI9hQ39hQ0Jb24_463KX_8mIBiC4QUsgvwd73_R_Y3W-vz_w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2911126998</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gene expression profiles in clinically T1-2N0 ER+HER2− breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy: their added value in case sentinel lymph node biopsy is not performed</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>van Roozendaal, L. M. ; Vane, M. L. G. ; Colier, E. ; Strobbe, L. J. A. ; de Boer, M. ; Sonke, G. ; Van Maaren, M. C. ; Smidt, M. L.</creator><creatorcontrib>van Roozendaal, L. M. ; Vane, M. L. G. ; Colier, E. ; Strobbe, L. J. A. ; de Boer, M. ; Sonke, G. ; Van Maaren, M. C. ; Smidt, M. L.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer treatment results in patients with unknown positive nodal status and potential risk for systemic undertreatment. This study aimed to investigate whether gene expression profiles (GEPs) can lower this risk in cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer patients treated with BCT.
Methods
Patients were included if diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 with cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer, treated with BCT and SLNB, and in whom GEP was applied. Adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations based on clinical risk status (Dutch breast cancer guideline of 2020 versus PREDICT v2.1) with and without knowledge on SLNB outcome were compared to GEP outcome. We examined missing adjuvant chemotherapy indications, and the number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Results
Of 3585 patients, 2863 (79.9%) had pN0 and 722 (20.1%) pN + disease. Chemotherapy was recommended in 1354 (37.8% guideline-2020) and 1888 patients (52.7% PREDICT). Eliminating SLNB outcome (
n
= 722) resulted in omission of chemotherapy recommendation in 475 (35.1% guideline-2020) and 412 patients (21.8% PREDICT). GEP revealed genomic high risk in 126 (26.5% guideline-2020) and 82 patients (19.9% PREDICT) in case of omitted chemotherapy recommendation in the absence of SLNB. Extrapolated to the whole group, this concerns 3.5% and 2.3%, respectively, resulting in the need for 28–44 GEPs to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Conclusion
If no SLNB is performed, clinical risk status according to the guideline of 2020 and PREDICT predicts a very low risk for systemic undertreatment. The number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for undertreatment does not justify its standard use.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6806</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7217</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-07128-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37794289</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adjuvant treatment ; Axilla - pathology ; Biopsy ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Breast Neoplasms - genetics ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Cancer ; Cancer research ; Cancer therapies ; Care and treatment ; Chemotherapy ; Clinical Trial ; Comparative analysis ; ErbB-2 protein ; Female ; Gene expression ; Genes ; Genetic aspects ; Genetic research ; Humans ; Lumpectomy ; Lymph Node Excision ; Lymph nodes ; Lymph Nodes - pathology ; Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology ; Lymphatic system ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Medicine, Experimental ; Oncology ; Patients ; Prognosis ; Sentinel Lymph Node - pathology ; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy ; Transcriptome</subject><ispartof>Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024-01, Vol.203 (1), p.103-110</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s).</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-bc1b9f2758c874c098ec87b7ab0bfddc0f7e050d1de6c8c2f8cca7f3f67dc08f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0835-8651 ; 0000-0001-8088-9628 ; 0000-0002-1919-447X ; 0000-0003-4831-1679 ; 0000-0002-3840-3003 ; 0000-0002-5708-2559 ; 0000-0003-4514-5329 ; 0000-0002-8328-1869</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10549-023-07128-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10549-023-07128-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37794289$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Roozendaal, L. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vane, M. L. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colier, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobbe, L. J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Boer, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonke, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Maaren, M. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smidt, M. L.</creatorcontrib><title>Gene expression profiles in clinically T1-2N0 ER+HER2− breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy: their added value in case sentinel lymph node biopsy is not performed</title><title>Breast cancer research and treatment</title><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><description>Purpose
Omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer treatment results in patients with unknown positive nodal status and potential risk for systemic undertreatment. This study aimed to investigate whether gene expression profiles (GEPs) can lower this risk in cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer patients treated with BCT.
Methods
Patients were included if diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 with cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer, treated with BCT and SLNB, and in whom GEP was applied. Adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations based on clinical risk status (Dutch breast cancer guideline of 2020 versus PREDICT v2.1) with and without knowledge on SLNB outcome were compared to GEP outcome. We examined missing adjuvant chemotherapy indications, and the number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Results
Of 3585 patients, 2863 (79.9%) had pN0 and 722 (20.1%) pN + disease. Chemotherapy was recommended in 1354 (37.8% guideline-2020) and 1888 patients (52.7% PREDICT). Eliminating SLNB outcome (
n
= 722) resulted in omission of chemotherapy recommendation in 475 (35.1% guideline-2020) and 412 patients (21.8% PREDICT). GEP revealed genomic high risk in 126 (26.5% guideline-2020) and 82 patients (19.9% PREDICT) in case of omitted chemotherapy recommendation in the absence of SLNB. Extrapolated to the whole group, this concerns 3.5% and 2.3%, respectively, resulting in the need for 28–44 GEPs to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Conclusion
If no SLNB is performed, clinical risk status according to the guideline of 2020 and PREDICT predicts a very low risk for systemic undertreatment. The number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for undertreatment does not justify its standard use.</description><subject>Adjuvant treatment</subject><subject>Axilla - pathology</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - genetics</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer research</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Clinical Trial</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>ErbB-2 protein</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gene expression</subject><subject>Genes</subject><subject>Genetic aspects</subject><subject>Genetic research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lumpectomy</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision</subject><subject>Lymph nodes</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - pathology</subject><subject>Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Sentinel Lymph Node - pathology</subject><subject>Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy</subject><subject>Transcriptome</subject><issn>0167-6806</issn><issn>1573-7217</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kt1qFDEUxwdR7Fp9AS8kIIggU5PMRya9kVLWVigKpV6HTObMTko2GZPM6r6B176PL-OTmO2ubVdEcpGP8zv_k5P8s-w5wUcEY_Y2EFyVPMe0yDEjtMnpg2xGKlbkjBL2MJthUrO8bnB9kD0J4RpjzBnmj7ODgjFe0obPsp9nYAHBt9FDCNpZNHrXawMBaYuU0VYracwaXZGcfsRofvnmfH5Jf33_gVoPMkSkpFXg0SijBhsDiuk4Qoe-6jjsmFw5G8CvtF2gOICX4_p4s9Aeya5L7EqaCW4KygAoJB1twSCzXo4Dsq4D1Go3hjXSIW0jGsH3zi-he5o96qUJ8Gw3H2af38-vTs_zi09nH05PLnJV0TLmrSIt7ymrGtWwUmHeQFq0TLa47btO4Z4BrnBHOqhVo2jfKCVZX_Q1S8GmLw6zd1vdcWpTWZVu6KURo9dL6dfCSS32I1YPYuFWgmDGSFHypPB6p-DdlwlCFEsdFBgjLbgpCNqwgpa8rEhCX_6FXrvJ29SfoJwQQmvOmztqIQ0IbXuXCquNqDhhrKnKoi42ZY_-QaXRwVKnb4HNX-8nvLqXMIA0cQjOTDF5I-yDdAsq70Lw0N--BsFiY0-xtadI9hQ39hQ0Jb24_463KX_8mIBiC4QUsgvwd73_R_Y3W-vz_w</recordid><startdate>20240101</startdate><enddate>20240101</enddate><creator>van Roozendaal, L. M.</creator><creator>Vane, M. L. G.</creator><creator>Colier, E.</creator><creator>Strobbe, L. J. A.</creator><creator>de Boer, M.</creator><creator>Sonke, G.</creator><creator>Van Maaren, M. C.</creator><creator>Smidt, M. L.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0835-8651</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8088-9628</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1919-447X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4831-1679</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3840-3003</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5708-2559</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4514-5329</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8328-1869</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240101</creationdate><title>Gene expression profiles in clinically T1-2N0 ER+HER2− breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy: their added value in case sentinel lymph node biopsy is not performed</title><author>van Roozendaal, L. M. ; Vane, M. L. G. ; Colier, E. ; Strobbe, L. J. A. ; de Boer, M. ; Sonke, G. ; Van Maaren, M. C. ; Smidt, M. L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-bc1b9f2758c874c098ec87b7ab0bfddc0f7e050d1de6c8c2f8cca7f3f67dc08f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adjuvant treatment</topic><topic>Axilla - pathology</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - genetics</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer research</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Clinical Trial</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>ErbB-2 protein</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gene expression</topic><topic>Genes</topic><topic>Genetic aspects</topic><topic>Genetic research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lumpectomy</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision</topic><topic>Lymph nodes</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - pathology</topic><topic>Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Sentinel Lymph Node - pathology</topic><topic>Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy</topic><topic>Transcriptome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Roozendaal, L. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vane, M. L. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colier, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobbe, L. J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Boer, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonke, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Maaren, M. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smidt, M. L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Roozendaal, L. M.</au><au>Vane, M. L. G.</au><au>Colier, E.</au><au>Strobbe, L. J. A.</au><au>de Boer, M.</au><au>Sonke, G.</au><au>Van Maaren, M. C.</au><au>Smidt, M. L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gene expression profiles in clinically T1-2N0 ER+HER2− breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy: their added value in case sentinel lymph node biopsy is not performed</atitle><jtitle>Breast cancer research and treatment</jtitle><stitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</stitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><date>2024-01-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>203</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>103</spage><epage>110</epage><pages>103-110</pages><issn>0167-6806</issn><eissn>1573-7217</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer treatment results in patients with unknown positive nodal status and potential risk for systemic undertreatment. This study aimed to investigate whether gene expression profiles (GEPs) can lower this risk in cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer patients treated with BCT.
Methods
Patients were included if diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 with cT1-2N0 ER+ HER2– breast cancer, treated with BCT and SLNB, and in whom GEP was applied. Adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations based on clinical risk status (Dutch breast cancer guideline of 2020 versus PREDICT v2.1) with and without knowledge on SLNB outcome were compared to GEP outcome. We examined missing adjuvant chemotherapy indications, and the number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Results
Of 3585 patients, 2863 (79.9%) had pN0 and 722 (20.1%) pN + disease. Chemotherapy was recommended in 1354 (37.8% guideline-2020) and 1888 patients (52.7% PREDICT). Eliminating SLNB outcome (
n
= 722) resulted in omission of chemotherapy recommendation in 475 (35.1% guideline-2020) and 412 patients (21.8% PREDICT). GEP revealed genomic high risk in 126 (26.5% guideline-2020) and 82 patients (19.9% PREDICT) in case of omitted chemotherapy recommendation in the absence of SLNB. Extrapolated to the whole group, this concerns 3.5% and 2.3%, respectively, resulting in the need for 28–44 GEPs to identify one patient at risk for systemic undertreatment.
Conclusion
If no SLNB is performed, clinical risk status according to the guideline of 2020 and PREDICT predicts a very low risk for systemic undertreatment. The number of GEPs needed to identify one patient at risk for undertreatment does not justify its standard use.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>37794289</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10549-023-07128-2</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0835-8651</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8088-9628</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1919-447X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4831-1679</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3840-3003</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5708-2559</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4514-5329</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8328-1869</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0167-6806 |
ispartof | Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024-01, Vol.203 (1), p.103-110 |
issn | 0167-6806 1573-7217 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10771349 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Adjuvant treatment Axilla - pathology Biopsy Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy Breast Neoplasms - genetics Breast Neoplasms - surgery Cancer Cancer research Cancer therapies Care and treatment Chemotherapy Clinical Trial Comparative analysis ErbB-2 protein Female Gene expression Genes Genetic aspects Genetic research Humans Lumpectomy Lymph Node Excision Lymph nodes Lymph Nodes - pathology Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology Lymphatic system Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Medicine, Experimental Oncology Patients Prognosis Sentinel Lymph Node - pathology Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Transcriptome |
title | Gene expression profiles in clinically T1-2N0 ER+HER2− breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy: their added value in case sentinel lymph node biopsy is not performed |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T08%3A49%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gene%20expression%20profiles%20in%20clinically%20T1-2N0%20ER+HER2%E2%88%92%20breast%20cancer%20patients%20treated%20with%20breast-conserving%20therapy:%20their%20added%20value%20in%20case%20sentinel%20lymph%20node%20biopsy%20is%20not%20performed&rft.jtitle=Breast%20cancer%20research%20and%20treatment&rft.au=van%20Roozendaal,%20L.%20M.&rft.date=2024-01-01&rft.volume=203&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=103&rft.epage=110&rft.pages=103-110&rft.issn=0167-6806&rft.eissn=1573-7217&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10549-023-07128-2&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA778543639%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2911126998&rft_id=info:pmid/37794289&rft_galeid=A778543639&rfr_iscdi=true |