Mammaprint™: a comprehensive review

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1 Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 136(5), e359–e386 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2 Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer E P et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann. Oncol. 28(8), 1700–1712 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3 Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 379(9814), 432–444 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4 Azim HA, de Azambuja E, Colozza M, Bines J, Piccart MJ. Long-term toxic effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 22(9), 1939–1947 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5 Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, McCune JS, Linden HM, Veenstra DL. The cost of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 104(10), 2054–2062 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6 Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5), 646–674 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7 Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797), 747–752 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8 Kwa M, Makris A, Esteva FJ. Clinical utility of gene-expression signatures in early stage breast cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 14(10), 595–610 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9 van't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415, 530 (2002). •• Describing the development of the gene-expression signature: from the initial approximately 5000 genes tested by cluster analysis, a signature was created with 70 genes that best correlated with prognosis, therefore using a ‘data-driven approach’ with no a priori knowledge of the involved genes.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10 Cardoso F, van't Veer LJ, Bogaerts J et al. 70-Gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(8), 717–729 (2016). •• The results of the MINDACT trial that prospectively showed that among patients with high-clinical/low-genomic risk, chemotherapy could be safely avoided.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11 van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347(25), 1999–2009 (2002). •• The first retrospective validation series, in which the prognostic ability of Mammaprint™ was proved.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12 Drukker CA, van Tinteren H, Schmidt MK et al. Long-term impact of the 70-gene signature on breast cancer outcome. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 143(3), 587–592 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13 Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R et al. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 117(3), 483–495 (2009). • The first independent validation study of Mammaprint, performed by the TRANSBIG consortium.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14 Mook S, Schmidt MK, Viale G et al. The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1–3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 116(2), 295–302 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15 Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98(17), 1183–1192 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16 Wittner BS, Sgroi DC, Ryan PD et al. Analysis of the MammaPrint breast cancer assay in a predominantly postmenopausal cohort. Clin. Cancer Res. 14(10), 2988 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17 Mook S, Schmidt MK, Weigelt B et al. The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. Ann. Oncol. 21(4), 717–722 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18 Ishitobi M, Goranova TE, Komoike Y et al. Clinical utility of the 70-gene MammaPrint Profile in a Japanese population. Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 40(6), 508–512 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19 Na KY, Kim KS, Lee JE et al. The 70-gene prognostic signature for Korean breast cancer patients. J. Breast Cancer 14(1), 33–38 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20 Saghatchian M, Mook S, Pruneri G et al. Additional prognostic value of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint^®) among breast cancer patients with 4–9 positive lymph nodes. Breast 22(5), 682–690 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21 Esserman LJ, Yau C, Thompson CK et al. Use of molecular tools to identify patients with indolent breast cancers with ultralow risk over 2 decades. JAMA Oncol. 3(11), 1503–1510 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22 Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retèl VP et al. A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int. J. Cancer 133(4), 929–936 (2013). • The long-term survival results of the prospective RASTER study, confirming the prognostic ability of Mammaprint.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23 Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH, Retel VP et al. Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol. 8(12), 1079–1087 (2007). •• The first results of the RASTER study, the first prospective study testing Mammaprint in a community-based setting, proving its feasibility.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24 Straver ME, Glas AM, Hannemann J et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 119(3), 551–558 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25 Glück S, de Snoo F, Peeters J, Stork-Sloots L, Somlo G. Molecular subtyping of early-stage breast cancer identifies a group of patients who do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 139(3), 759–767 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26 Whitworth P, Beitsch P, Mislowsky A et al. Chemosensitivity and endocrine sensitivity in clinical luminal breast cancer patients in the prospective neoadjuvant breast registry symphony trial (NBRST) predicted by molecular subtyping. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 24(3), 669–675 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27 Kok M, Koornstra RH, Mook S et al. Additional value of the 70-gene signature and levels of ER and PR for the prediction of outcome in tamoxifen-treated ER-positive breast cancer. Breast 21(6), 769–778 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28 Knauer M, Mook S, Rutgers EJT et al. The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 120(3), 655–661 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29 Knauer M, Cardoso F, Wesseling J et al. Identification of a low-risk subgroup of HER-2-positive breast cancer by the 70-gene prognosis signature. Br. J. Cancer 103(12), 1788–1793 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30 Mook S, Knauer M, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM et al. Metastatic potential of T1 breast cancer can be predicted by the 70-gene MammaPrint Signature. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 17(5), 1406–1413 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31 Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Sonke GS, Vijver VDJM, Linn SC. Additional value and potential use of the 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer in daily clinical practice. Ann. Oncol. 22(9), 2021–2030 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32 Kunz G. Use of a genomic test (MammaPrint^™) in daily clinical practice to assist in risk stratification of young breast cancer patients. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 283(3), 597–602 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 33 Drukker CA, Elias SG, Nijenhuis MV et al. Gene expression profiling to predict the risk of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 148(3), 599–613 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34 Beumer IJ, Persoon M, Witteveen A et al. Prognostic value of MammaPrint^® in invasive lobular breast cancer. Biomark. Insights 11, 139–146 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35 Sapino A, Roepman P, Linn SC et al. MammaPrint molecular diagnostics on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. J. Mol. Diagn. 16(2), 190–197 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36 Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Senn HJ. Meeting highlights: international consensus panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer. Seventh International Conference on adjuvant therapy of primary breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 19(18), 3817–3827 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37 Olivotto IA, Bajdik CD, Ravdin PM et al. Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(12), 2716–2725 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 38 Welcome to Adjuvant! Online. https://adjuvantonline.com/.
  Google Scholar
• 39 Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 10(4), R65 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40 Sestak I, Buus R, Cuzick J et al. Comparison of the performance of 6 prognostic signatures for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 4(4), 545–553 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41 National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast cancer version 3.2017. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx#site.
  Google Scholar
• 42 Nationaal Borstkanker Overleg Nederland. Oncoline. www.oncoline.nl/.
  Google Scholar
• 43 Tryfonidis K, Poncet C, Slaets L et al. 150O_PR not all small node negative (pT1abN0) breast cancers are similar: outcome results from an EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 (MINDACT) trial substudy. Ann. Oncol. 28(Suppl. 5), (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 44 Rugo HS, Olopade OI, DeMichele A et al. Adaptive randomization of veliparib-carboplatin treatment in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(1), 23–34 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45 Blumencranz LE, Shivers SC, Untch S et al. Abstract P5-16-05: MINT trial yields MammaPrint High1/High2 risk classes associated with significant differences in pCR and receptor subtype. Cancer Res. 77(Suppl. 4), P5-16-05-P5-16-05 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 46 Tolaney SM, Barry WT, Dang CT et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(2), 134–141 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 47 Tolaney SM, Barry WT, Guo H et al. Seven-year (yr) follow-up of adjuvant paclitaxel (T) and trastuzumab (H) (APT trial) for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). J. Clin. Oncol. 35(Suppl. 15), 511–511 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 48 Duffy MJ, Harbeck N, Nap M et al. Clinical use of biomarkers in breast cancer: updated guidelines from the European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM). Eur. J. Cancer 75, 284–298 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49 Krop I, Ismaila N, Andre F et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice guideline focused update. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(24), 2838–2847 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 50 Shachar SS, Muss HB. Internet tools to enhance breast cancer care. NPJ Breast Cancer 2, 16011 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 51 Ramalho M, Fontes F, Ruano L, Pereira S, Lunet N. Cognitive impairment in the first year after breast cancer diagnosis: a prospective cohort study. Breast. 32, 173–178 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52 Cardoso F, Van't Veer L, Rutgers E, Loi S, Mook S, Piccart-Gebhart MJ. Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(5), 729–735 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 53 Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF et al. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(5), 436–446 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 54 Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(2), 111–121 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55 EUnetHTA. Final assessment report on MammaPrint^® – added value of using the gene expression signature test MammaPrint^® for adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making in early breast cancer (2018). www.eunethta.eu/final-assessment-report-on-mammaprint-added-value-of-using-the-gene-expression-signature-test-mammaprint-for-adjuvant-chemotherapy-decision-making-in-early-breast-cancer/.
  Google Scholar
• 56 Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). MammaPrint^® test for personalised management of adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer (2018). /en/mammaprint%C2%AE-test-for-personalised-management-of-adjuvant-chemotherapy-decisions-in-early-breast
  Google Scholar
• 57 Ancoli-Israel S, Liu L, Rissling M et al. Sleep, fatigue, depression, and circadian activity rhythms in women with breast cancer before and after treatment: a 1-year longitudinal study. Support. Care Cancer 22(9), 2535–2545 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 58 Syrowatka A, Motulsky A, Kurteva S et al. Predictors of distress in female breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 165(2), 229–245 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 59 Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Wirapati P et al. Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin. Cancer Res. 14(16), 5158–5165 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60 Giuliano AE, Connolly JL, Edge SB et al. Breast cancer – major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 67(4), 290–303 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 61 Ignatiadis M, Azim HA, Desmedt C et al. The genomic grade assay compared with Ki67 to determine risk of distant breast cancer recurrence. JAMA Oncol. 2(2), 217–224 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 62 de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br. J. Cancer 96(10), 1504–1513 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63 Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 103(22), 1656–1664 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64 Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A et al. Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann. Oncol. 26(8), 1533–1546 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65 Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 26(Suppl. 5), v8–v30 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 66 Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann. Oncol. 24(9), 2206–2223 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 67 Viale G, de Snoo FA, Slaets L et al. Immunohistochemical versus molecular (BluePrint and MammaPrint) subtyping of breast carcinoma. Outcome results from the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 167(1), 123–131 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68 Thakur SS, Li H, Chan AMY et al. The use of automated Ki67 analysis to predict Oncotype DX risk-of-recurrence categories in early-stage breast cancer. PLoS ONE 13(1), e0188983 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 69 Bonastre J, Marguet S, Lueza B, Michiels S, Delaloge S, Saghatchian M. Cost effectiveness of molecular profiling for adjuvant decision making in patients with node-negative breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 32(31), 3513–3519 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 70 Lux MP, Nabieva N, Hildebrandt T et al. Budget impact analysis of gene expression tests to aid therapy decisions for breast cancer patients in Germany. Breast 37(Suppl. C), 89–98 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 71 Bartlett JMS, Bayani J, Marshall A et al. Comparing breast cancer multiparameter tests in the OPTIMA prelim trial: no test is more equal than the others. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 108(9), djw050 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 72 Gauchan D, Ramaekers R, Copur SM. Cost–effectiveness of molecular profiling for early breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(14), 1627–1628 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 73 Blok EJ, Bastiaannet E, van den Hout WB et al. Systematic review of the clinical and economic value of gene expression profiles for invasive early breast cancer available in Europe. Cancer Treat. Rev. 62(Suppl. C), 74–90 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 74 Kuijer A, van Bommel ACM, Drukker CA et al. Using a gene expression signature when controversy exists regarding the indication for adjuvant systemic treatment reduces the proportion of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a nationwide study. Genet. Med. 18(7), 720–726 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75 Wuerstlein R, Gluz O, Kates R et al. Abstract P6-09-10: results of multigene assay (MammaPrint^®) and molecular subtyping (BluePrint^®) substantially impact treatment decision making in early breast cancer: final analysis of the WSG PRIME decision impact study. Cancer Res. 77(4 Suppl.), P6-09-10-P6-09-10 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 76 Retèl VP, Joore MA, Drukker CA et al. Prospective cost–effectiveness analysis of genomic profiling in breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 49(18), 3773–3779 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77 Yang M, Rajan S, Issa AM. Cost effectiveness of gene expression profiling for early stage breast cancer: a decision-analytic model. Cancer 118(20), 5163–5170 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 78 Chen E, Tong KB, Malin JL. Cost–effectiveness of 70-gene MammaPrint signature in node-negative breast cancer. Am. J. Manag. Care 16(12), e333–e342 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 79 Seguí MÁ, Crespo C, Cortés J et al. Genomic profile of breast cancer: cost–effectiveness analysis from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 14(6), 889–899 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 80 Retèl VP, Linn SC, van Harten WH. Molecular profiling is rather likely to be cost effective. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(14), 1626–1627 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 81 Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L et al. Concordance among gene-expression–based predictors for breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355(6), 560–569 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 82 Peláez-García A, Yébenes L, Berjón A et al. Comparison of risk classification between EndoPredict and MammaPrint in ER-positive/HER2-negative primary invasive breast cancer. PLoS ONE 12(9), e0183452 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 83 Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Piette F et al. Comparison of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer. BMC Genomics 9(1), 394 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 84 Sestak I, Dowsett M, Zabaglo L et al. Factors predicting late recurrence for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 105(19), 1504–1511 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 85 Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with onco type DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(22), 2783–2790 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 86 Sestak I, Buus R, Cuzick J et al. Abstract S6-05: comprehensive comparison of prognostic signatures for breast cancer in TransATAC. Cancer Res. 77(Suppl. 4), S6-05-S6-05 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 87 Wolf DM, Yau C, Sanil A et al. DNA repair deficiency biomarkers and the 70-gene ultra-high risk signature as predictors of veliparib/carboplatin response in the I-SPY 2 breast cancer trial. NPJ Breast Cancer 3, 31 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 88 Azim HA, Michiels S, Zagouri F et al. Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: the IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Consensus Statement. Ann. Oncol. 24(3), 647–654 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 89 Sotiriou C, Pusztai L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(8), 790–800 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 90 Garcia-Murillas I, Schiavon G, Weigelt B et al. Mutation tracking in circulating tumor DNA predicts relapse in early breast cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 7(302), 302ra133 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar