Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster viewing and lunch

30P - Comparison of commercially available gene expression signatures in older patients with early breast cancer

Date

12 May 2023

Session

Poster viewing and lunch

Presenters

Alexandre De Nonneville

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2023) 8 (1suppl_4): 101218-101218. 10.1016/esmoop/esmoop101218

Authors

A. De Nonneville1, P. Finetti2, A. Gonçalves2, E. Mamessier3, F. Bertucci4

Author affiliations

  • 1 IPC - Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, Cedex 09/FR
  • 2 IPC - Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, Cedex/FR
  • 3 CRCM - Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, Marseille, Cedex/FR
  • 4 IPC - Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille/FR

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 30P

Background

Gene expression signatures (GES) have emerged to predict prognosis and guide the use of adjuvant therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (eBC). However, very limited data is available in older patients, especially direct comparative information.

Methods

We tested and compared the prognostic value of four GES (Oncotype Dx Recurrence Score (RS), PAM50-based Prosigna (ROR), MammaPrint 70-gene (Prog70), and EndoPredict (EPclin)) in 3,533 operated and chemotherapy-naïve patients with pN0/pN1 HR+/HER2- eBC, according to a 70-year age cutoff, from a pooled dataset of 12,677 BC patients. The primary endpoint was Relapse-Free Survival (RFS).

Results

Median follow-up for this analysis was 81.1 months. RFS events were recorded in 269 of the 1,167 patients ≥70 years (23%) and in 399 of the 2,366 patients <70 years (17%). Concordance tests of the four signatures did not differ between the two age groups (concordance mean of 77% and 78%, in the ≥70 and <70 groups, respectively; p=0.662, Mann-Whitney test). All four signatures provided prognostic information in patients <70, with EPclin appearing to be the more informative (hazard ratio [HR]=1.84; 95% CI, 1.49-2.27). However, none of them was able to discriminate prognostic categories in patients ≥70 (ROR: HR=1.02 [0.80-1.29], p=0.880; RS: HR=0.91 [0.71-1.16], p=0.440; EPclin: HR=1.22 [0.95-1.57], p=0.115; Prog70: HR=0.87 [0.68-1.13], p=0.299).

Conclusions

We observed good prognostic performances of the four GES in patients <70, as previously described. By contrast, our results in patients ≥70 are equivocal and suggest that GES should be used with caution in this population. Further development and validation may be needed in this particular setting.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Insitut Paoli-Calmettes.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

A. De Nonneville: Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Lilly, Novartis, MSD. A. Gonçalves: Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker: Novartis, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, daiichy sanko. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.