Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings.
Vol 23, No 16S (June 1 Supplement), 2005: 506
© 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sotiriou, C. Articles by Piccart, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Sotiriou, C. Articles by Piccart, M.

Abstract

Molecular characterization of clinical grade in breast cancer (BC) challenges the existence of "grade 2" tumors

Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; ISREC, Epalinges, Lausanne, Switzerland; John Radcliff Hosp, Oxford, United Kingdom; Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

506

Background: Histological grade (HG) in BC provides important prognostic information. Grade 2 tumors are observed to have an intermediate clinical outcome if compared to grade 1 (good prognosis) and grade 3 (poor prognosis) tumors. A major problem is the lack of inter-observer consistency, particularly for grade 2 tumors. The aim of this study was to correlate gene expression profiles (GEP) with HG and clinical outcome. Methods: GEP from 137 early BC patients receiving only locoregional therapy at 2 institutions was performed using Affymetrix U133 A chips. Median follow-up was 6.8 years. Differentially expressed genes were identified by contrasting grade 1 and grade 3 determined by the local pathologist using a stratified t-test. Central pathology review is ongoing. False discovery proportion was done using 10,000 permutations. A multiple independent validation was performed using three publicly available datasets from Van’t Veer et al. 2002, Sorlie et al. 2001 and Sotiriou et al. 2003 (total=281 tumor samples). Results: Grade 1 and 3 tumors were associated with distinct GEP. A "genetic grade index" (GGI) based on the 80 most significant genes was computed. Interestingly, grade 2 tumors were found to have GGI similar to either grade 1 or 3 tumors. At 50% cutoff, GGI segregated grade 2 tumors into two distinct subgroups namely grade 1- and grade 3-like with statistically different relapse free survival (RFS; HR: 3.89, p=0.013) and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS; HR: 4.67, p=0.049), similar to those observed in HG 1 and 3 tumors respectively (RFS; HR: 2.61, p=0.019 and DMFS; HR: 3.59, p=0.026). We then applied the 80-gene list to 3 independent publicly available datasets. Similarly in all three, grade 2 tumors were divided into grade 1- and 3-like subgroups with statistically distinct clinical outcome. Conclusions: HG 1 and 3 in BC is associated with distinctive GEP. GEP reveals grade 2 tumors to consist of either grade 1 or 3 molecular signatures, associated with different prognoses. This has been independently confirmed in multiple validation sets across different microarray platforms and could have important implications for optimal patient management.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract presentation from the 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting