Previous Page  31 / 43 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 31 / 43 Next Page
Page Background www.revisionesencancer.com

1 )

“Tratamiento médico del cáncer en el año 2019”

Organiza:

6 , 7 y 8 d e f e b r e r o 2 0 1 9

NH Collection Eurobuilding

M A D R I D

www.revisionesencancer.com

C O O R D I N A D O R E S C I E N T Í F I C O S :

Eduardo Díaz-Rubio

Enrique Aranda Aguilar

Enrique Grande Pulido

Ana Lluch Hernández

Pedro Pérez Segura

Mariano Provencio Pulla

¿Son todos los test genómicos iguales?

tative and semi-quantitative array-based technologies.

Previous in silico comparisons of multiple gene signatures

have identified statistically significant discordance between dif-

ferent “diagnostic tests” (

13

,

15

17

). However, to date, this has

been attributed to suboptimal comparisons because in the ma-

jority of studies genomic prediction scores have been estimated

from published expression profiles. It has been argued that, in

any direct comparison of validated diagnostic genomic assays,

a high level of concordance could and should be obtained (

14

).

In the current study, we performed such a direct comparison,

each commercial assay was performed as prescribed by the rel-

evant manufacturer (although the AQUA-IHC4 assay used TMAs

for convenience). What is striking is that, among five tests with

robust independent technical and clinical validation as predic-

tors of residual risk (MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, Prosigna, IHC4,

and IHC4-AQUA) and three that measure a recognized risk fac-

tor (molecular subtype), there is marked disagreement across

all tests. Indeed, for all tests the level of agre ment was

Risk tool

Total

Nottingham Prognostic Index, median (range)

4.6 (2.8–8.2)

"

3.4, No. (%)

12 (4.0)

>

3.4–

"

5.4, No. (%)

226 (74.8)

>

5.4, No. (%)

64 (21.2)

PREDICT 10-year overall survival, median (range), %

Endocrine therapy only

77.0 (25.1–94.6)

Chemotherapy and endocrine therapy

82.6 (39.8–95.9)

Additional benefit of chemotherapy

5.5 (1.2–25.8)

Adjuvant! 10-year risk overall survival, median (range), %

Endocrine therapy only

68.6 (25.4–90.4)

Chemotherapy and endocrine therapy

76.4 (31.0–93.6)

Additional benefit of chemotherapy

6.8 (1.2–25.8)

Adjuvant! 10-year relapse-free survival, median (range), %

Endocrine therapy only

60.5 (22.0–82.1)

Chemotherapy and endocrine therapy

72.9 (29.1–89.4)

Additional benefit of chemotherapy

10.5 (2.7–33.3)

Table 3.

Risk categorization by each test

Risk group

Oncotype DX* No. (%)

MammaPrint† No. (%)

Prosigna No. (%)

IHC4 No. (%)

IHC4-AQUA‡ No. (%)

No. of patients (%)

301 (99.7)

298 (98.9)

299 (99.0)

257 (85.1)

271 (89.7)

Low risk

163 (54.2)

183 (61.4)

108 (36.1)

62 (24.1)

87 (32.1)

Intermediate risk

84 (27.9)

88 (29.4)

123 (47.9) 80 (29.5)

Mid risk

55 (20.3)

High risk

54 (17.9)

115 (38.6)

103 (34.5)

72 (28.0)

49

(18.1)

*Oncotype DX is divided into three risk groups, with intermediate defined as recurrence score 18-25 for the current analysis.

†MammaPrint divides tumors into two risk groups only.

‡IHC4-AQUA divides tumors into four risk groups: low, low-mid (here called intermediate), mid and high (combined as high risk).

ARTICLE

108/9/djw050/2499553 by guest on 01 February 2019

39% coincidencias

31%Bajo Riesgo

8% Alto Riesgo