Comparison of Molecular Subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to Local Clinical Subtyping in Breast Cancer Patients

Nguyen, Bichlien; Cusumano, P.; Deck, Kenneth B.; Kerlin, D.; García, Agustin A.; Barone, Julie; Rivera, Edgardo; Yao, Katharine; Snoo, Femke A. de; Akker, Jeroen van den; Stork‐Sloots, Lisette; Generali, Daniele

doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2561-6

Cited by 39 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of multiplex signatures have been derived and are being made commercially available as clinical assays, especially in the breast cancer field. 19,20 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiplex Protein Signature for the Detection of Bladder Cancer in Voided Urine Samples

Rosser

Ross²,

Chang

et al. 2013

Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Accurate urine assays for bladder cancer detection would benefit patients and health care systems. Through extensive genomic and proteomic profiling of urine components we previously identified a panel of 8 biomarkers that can facilitate the detection of bladder cancer in voided urine samples. In this study we confirmed this diagnostic molecular signature in a diverse multicenter cohort. Materials and Methods We performed a case-control, phase II study in which we analyzed voided urine from 102 subjects with bladder cancer and 206 with varying urological disorders. The urine concentration of 8 biomarkers (IL-8, MMP and 10, PAI-1, VEGF, ANG, CA9 and APOE) was assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Diagnostic performance of the panel of tested biomarkers was evaluated using ROCs and descriptive statistical values, eg sensitivity and specificity. Results Seven of the 8 urine biomarkers were increased in subjects with bladder cancer relative to those without bladder cancer. The 7 biomarkers were assessed in a new model, which had an AUROC of 0.88 (95% CI 0.84–0.93), and 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity. In contrast, the sensitivity of voided urine cytology and the UroVysion® cytogenetic test in this cohort was 39% and 54%, respectively. Study limitations include analysis performed on banked urine samples and the lack of voided urine cytology and cytogenetic test data on controls. Conclusions The study provides further evidence that the reported panel of diagnostic biomarkers can reliably achieve the noninvasive detection of bladder cancer with higher sensitivity than currently available urine based assays.

show abstract

“…A number of multiplex signatures have been derived and are being made commercially available as clinical assays, especially in the breast cancer field. 19,20 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiplex Protein Signature for the Detection of Bladder Cancer in Voided Urine Samples

Rosser

Ross²,

Chang

et al. 2013

Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first analysis, consisting of a panel of 70 genes, allows the assessment of tumor dynamics and the direction of the neoplastic process, which, in consequence, permits the stratification of patients into the groups of high and low risk of relapse [29, 30] (regardless of the status of receptors of estrogens, progesterone and human epidermal growth factor 2). Separate analyses of these transcripts are conducted as part of the TargetPrint test [31]. The information obtained through these analyses, along with that from the additional analysis of 80 transcripts in the BluePrint test, providing molecular distinction of breast cancers into the basal, luminal and ERBB2 types, helps oncologists to choose the appropriate chemo- and hormonotherapy.…”

Section: Prognostic Biomarkersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The last test in the MammaPrint Symphony test set is TheraPrint, a predictive test providing information on the expression of the selected 56–125 genes identified as predictive biomarkers, which are of key importance for therapy personalization and the assessment of potential benefits from the chemotherapy used. For example, a significant difference in the level of expression of the BCL2 , CDH3 , GRB7 , KRT6B , and KRT17 genes was observed between the groups of patients responding and not responding to treatment [31]. …”

Section: Prognostic Biomarkersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers: Tools in Personalized Oncology

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oncology indispensably leads us to personalized medicine, which allows an individual approach to be taken with each patient. Personalized oncology is based on pharmacogenomics and the effect of genetic differences in individuals (germline and somatic) on the way cancer patients respond to chemotherapeutics. Biomarkers detected using molecular biology tools allow the molecular characterization of cancer signatures and provide information relevant for personalized treatment. Biomarkers can be divided into two main subgroups: prognostic and predictive. The aim of the application of prognostic biomarkers, which provide information on the overall cancer outcome in patients, is to facilitate cancer diagnosis, usually with no need for putting invasive methods into use. Predictive biomarkers help to optimize therapy decisions, as they provide information on the likelihood of response to a given chemotherapeutic. Among the prognostic factors that identify patients with different outcome risks (e.g., recurrence of the disease), the following factors can be distinguished: somatic and germline mutations, changes in DNA methylation that lead to the enhancement or suppression of gene expression, the occurrence of elevated levels of microRNA (miRNA) capable of binding specific messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules, which affects gene expression, as well as the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in blood, which leads to a poor prognosis for the patient. Biomarkers for personalized oncology are used mainly in molecular diagnostics of chronic myeloid leukemia, colon, breast and lung cancer, and recently in melanoma. They are successfully used in the evaluation of the benefits that can be achieved through targeted therapy or in the evaluation of toxic effects of the chemotherapeutic used in the therapy.

show abstract

“…For HER2, fluorescent (FISH), chromogenic (CISH), or silver (SISH) in situ hybridization is frequently used in cases of inconclusive IHC results. More recently, HR and HER2 status can also be assessed by measuring messenger RNA (mRNA) expression [8][9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international study comparing conventional versus mRNA level testing (TargetPrint) for ER, PR, and HER2 status of breast cancer

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare results from messenger RNA (mRNA)-based TargetPrint testing with those from immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) conducted according to local standard procedures at hospitals worldwide. Tumor samples were prospectively obtained from 806 patients at 22 hospitals. The mRNA level of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) was assessed by TargetPrint quantitative gene expression readouts. IHC/ISH assessments were performed according to local standards at the participating hospitals. TargetPrint readout showed a high concordance with IHC/ISH of 95 % (kappa 0.81) for ER, 81 % (kappa 0.56) for PR, and 94 % (kappa 0.76) for HER2. The positive/negative agreement between TargetPrint and IHC for ER, PR, and HER2 was 96 %/87 %, 84 %/74 %, and 74 %/98 %, respectively. The concordance rate in IHC/ISH results between hospitals varied: 88-100 % for ER (kappa 0.50-1.00); 50-100 % for PR (kappa 0.20-1.00); and 90-100 % for HER2 (kappa 0.59-1.00). mRNA readout of ER, PR, and HER2 status by TargetPrint was largely comparable to local IHC/ISH analysis. However, there was substantial discordance in IHC/ISH results between different hospitals. When results are discordant, the use of TargetPrint would improve the reliability of hormone receptor and HER2 results by prompting retesting in a reference laboratory.

show abstract

Comparison of Molecular Subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to Local Clinical Subtyping in Breast Cancer Patients

Cited by 39 publications

References 13 publications

Multiplex Protein Signature for the Detection of Bladder Cancer in Voided Urine Samples

Multiplex Protein Signature for the Detection of Bladder Cancer in Voided Urine Samples

Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers: Tools in Personalized Oncology

An international study comparing conventional versus mRNA level testing (TargetPrint) for ER, PR, and HER2 status of breast cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About