A head-to-head comparison of Mammaprint and Oncotype Dx: A McGill University Health Center Experience.

Maroun, Ralph; Saleh, Ramy; Asselah, Jamil; Ömeroğlu, Atilla; Altinel, Gulbeyaz; Meterissian, Sarkis; Bouganim, Nathaniel

doi:10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.11017

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data on discordant results were available in 10 of 14 studies. RS results were compared to BCI in one study, with MMP in four studies, with ROR in four studies, and with EP/EPclin in one study . One further study, the 2016 TransATAC study, compared RS with BCI, ROR and EPclin .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MMP by Maroun et al . 2015), while 11 of 14 studies included node‐positive patients as well . A list of the studies is shown in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,40,41,43,[45][46][47]49,50,52 One further study, the 2016 TransATAC study, compared RS with BCI, ROR and EPclin. 47 As to nodal status, three of 14 studies included node-negative patients only (RS vs. BCI in TransATAC 2016, RS vs. ROR by Alvarado et al 2015, as well RS vs. MMP by Maroun et al 2015), while 11 of 14 studies included node-positive patients as well. 40,46,47 A list of the studies is shown in Table 3.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the 14 Studies Enrolled In The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prognostic power of Mammaprint in untreated patients was validated in the TRANSBIG study . Because of its extensive validation and wide clinical use, the RS assay is a common comparator in head‐to‐head studies with other assays …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…31 Because of its extensive validation and wide clinical use, the RS assay is a common comparator in head-to-head studies with other assays. 8,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] In this retrospective systematic literature review, we addressed the question of discordance in genomic risk group classifications between the five commercially available tests. We reviewed and summarized results from 14 available studies in the literature, which compared distinct genomic scores and corresponding risk group classifications with each other when two or more assays were performed on the same tumor sample, and we used the RS as a basis for the comparison.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Summary of head‐to‐head comparisons of patient risk classifications by the 21‐gene Recurrence Score® (RS) assay and other genomic assays for early breast cancer

Varga

Sinn

Seidman

2019

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many genomic assays that assess recurrence risk in early breast cancer (EBC) are prognostic, but they differ in risk group stratification, which can affect clinical utility. Prospective outcomes of >60 K patients treated based on the 21‐gene assay results have shown that chemotherapy may be safely omitted in EBC patents with low Recurrence Score (RS) results (RS < 18). Because of its extensive validation and wide clinical use, the RS assay is a common comparator in head‐to‐head studies with other assays. Published/presented studies of the RS assay performed on the same tumor samples with Breast Cancer Index (BCI), EndoPredict (EP) or EP+ clinical features (EPclin), MammaPrint (MMP) and/or Prosigna (ROR) assays were reviewed. Study findings were summarized descriptively.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MMP by Maroun et al . 2015), while 11 of 14 studies included node‐positive patients as well . A list of the studies is shown in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the 14 Studies Enrolled In The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Summary of head‐to‐head comparisons of patient risk classifications by the 21‐gene Recurrence Score® (RS) assay and other genomic assays for early breast cancer

Varga

Sinn

Seidman

2019

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Multigene assays in early breast cancer: Insights from recent phase 3 studies

Markopoulos

Hyams

Gómez

et al. 2020

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multigene assays (MGAs) guide treatment in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) enabling selective and effective use of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). Support for all MGAs had previously been derived from retrospectively-analyzed, prospective studies. Only 2 ESBC MGAs, the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint ®) and the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX ®), are now supported by entirely prospective randomized phase 3 trials. These studies varied in their primary objectives, design, and eligibility. The MINDACT study provided the first level 1 evidence for the 70-gene signature, identifying a prognostic capability irrespective of lymph node (LN) or hormone receptor (HR) status. However, the study did not support predictive value for the assay regarding adjuvant CT utility. The second prospective study, WSG-PlanB, confirmed the prognostic value of the 21-gene RS assay in HR-positive tumors with RS 11. A 5year disease free survival (DFS) of 94% was identified in this group when treated with endocrine therapy (ET) alone regardless of N0 or N1 nodal status. The final new prospective study, TAILORx, confirmed the prognostic value of the 21-gene assay in N0 HR-positive disease, demonstrating a lack of CT benefit in patients with midrange RS. The information from these phase 3 studies confirms that MGAs are not interchangeable and that each provides different information for differing patient populations. Prognosis-only is supported for the 70-gene signature while both prognosis and the predictive value of CT are provided by the 21-gene assay. This review assesses and contrasts these phase 3 studies in the context of target populations and clinical utility.

show abstract

MammaPrint versus EndoPredict: Poor correlation in disease recurrence risk classification of hormone receptor positive breast cancer

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCorrect risk assessment of disease recurrence in patients with early breast cancer is critically important to detect patients who may be spared adjuvant chemotherapy. In clinical practice this is increasingly done based on the results of gene expression assays. In the present study we compared the concordance of the 70-gene signature MammaPrint (MP) with the 12 gene assay EndoPredict (EP).MethodsRepresentative tissue of 48 primary tumours was analysed with the MP during routine diagnostic purposes. Corresponding formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was thereafter analysed by the EP test. Risk categories of both tests were compared.Results41 of 48 tumours could be directly compared by both tests. Of the 17 MP low risk cases, only 9 were considered low risk by EP (53% agreement) and of the 24 MP high risk cases, 18 were high risk by EP (75% agreement). Discrepancies occurred in 14 of 41 cases (34.1%). There was only a weak and non-significant correlation between the MP and EP test with an overall concordance of only 66%. The original therapeutic recommendation was based on the MP and would have been changed in 38% of the patients following EP test results. 4 patients developed distant metastases. The respective tumours of these patients were all classified as high risk by the EP, but only 3 were classified as high risk by the MP.ConclusionBoth tests resulted in different treatment recommendations for a significant proportion of patients and cannot be used interchangeably. The results underscore the urgent need for further comparative analyses of multi-genomic tests to avoid misclassification of disease recurrence risk in breast cancer patients.

show abstract

A head-to-head comparison of Mammaprint and Oncotype Dx: A McGill University Health Center Experience.

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Summary of head‐to‐head comparisons of patient risk classifications by the 21‐gene Recurrence Score® (RS) assay and other genomic assays for early breast cancer

Summary of head‐to‐head comparisons of patient risk classifications by the 21‐gene Recurrence Score® (RS) assay and other genomic assays for early breast cancer

Multigene assays in early breast cancer: Insights from recent phase 3 studies

MammaPrint versus EndoPredict: Poor correlation in disease recurrence risk classification of hormone receptor positive breast cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About