BACKGROUND: EMIT-1 is a national, observational, single-arm trial designed to assess the value of the Prosigna, Prediction Analysis of Microarray using the 50 gene classifier (PAM50)/Risk of Recurrence (ROR), test as a routine diagnostic tool, examining its impact on adjuvant treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, side-effects and cost-effectiveness. Here we present the impact on treatment decisions.
METHODS: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative pT1-pT2 lymph node-negative early breast cancer (EBC) were included. The Prosigna test and standard histopathology assessments were carried out. Clinicians\' treatment decisions were recorded before (pre-Prosigna) and after (post-Prosigna) the Prosigna test results were disclosed.
RESULTS: Of 2217 patients included, 2178 had conclusive Prosigna results. The pre-Prosigna treatment decisions were: no systemic treatment (NT) in 27% of patients, endocrine treatment alone (ET) in 38% and chemotherapy (CT) followed by ET (CT + ET) in 35%. Post-Prosigna treatment decisions were 25% NT, 51% ET and 24% CT + ET, respectively. Adjuvant treatment changed in 28% of patients, including 21% change in CT use. Among patients assigned to CT + ET pre-Prosigna, 45% were de-escalated to ET post-Prosigna. Of patients assigned to ET, 12% were escalated to CT + ET and 8% were de-escalated to NT; of those assigned to NT, 18% were escalated to ET/CT + ET. CT was more frequently recommended for patients aged ≤50 years. In the subgroup with pT1c-pT2 G2 and intermediate Ki67 (0.5-1.5× local laboratory median Ki67 score), the pre-Prosigna CT treatment decision varied widely across hospitals (3%-51%). Post-Prosigna, the variability of CT use was markedly reduced (8%-24%). The correlation between Ki67 and ROR score within this subgroup was poor (r = 0.25-0.39). The median ROR score increased by increasing histological grade, but the ROR score ranges were wide (for G1 0-79, G2 0-90, G3 16-94).
CONCLUSIONS: The Prosigna test result changed adjuvant treatment decisions in all EBC clinical risk groups, markedly decreased the CT use for patients categorized as higher clinical risk pre-Prosigna and reduced treatment decision discrepancies between hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Stratipath Breast tool for image-based risk profiling and compare it with an established prognostic multigene assay for risk profiling in a real-world case series of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer patients categorized as intermediate risk based on classic clinicopathological variables and eligible for chemotherapy.
METHODS: In a case series comprising 234 invasive ER-positive/HER2-negative tumors, clinicopathological data including Prosigna results and corresponding HE-stained tissue slides were retrieved. The digitized HE slides were analysed by Stratipath Breast.
RESULTS: Our findings showed that the Stratipath Breast analysis identified 49.6% of the clinically intermediate tumors as low risk and 50.4% as high risk. The Prosigna assay classified 32.5%, 47.0% and 20.5% tumors as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. Among Prosigna intermediate-risk tumors, 47.3% were stratified as Stratipath low risk and 52.7% as high risk. In addition, 89.7% of Stratipath low-risk cases were classified as Prosigna low/intermediate risk. The overall agreement between the two tests for low-risk and high-risk groups (N = 124) was 71.0%, with a Cohen\'s kappa of 0.42. For both risk profiling tests, grade and Ki67 differed significantly between risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The results from this clinical evaluation of image-based risk stratification shows a considerable agreement to an established gene expression assay in routine breast pathology.

UNASSIGNED: In hormone receptor-positive (ER+/PR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (EBC), gene expression tests such as the Prosigna are increasingly used since classic clinicopathological parameters and the proliferation factor Ki-67 often do not allow a definite therapy decision regarding an adjuvant chemotherapy. While the Prosigna test has been validated for postmenopausal patients, few data are available regarding its use in premenopausal patients. The present study compared the Prosigna test with the Ki-67 index in premenopausal patients.
UNASSIGNED: Premenopausal patients with HR+ HER2-, pN0-1, G1-2 EBC were retrospectively enrolled (n = 55). The Prosigna assay was performed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples of surgical resection specimens. Ki-67 was reassessed in original diagnostic core needle biopsy specimens and defined as low, intermediate, or high with the threshold of <10%, 10-24%, ≥25%.
UNASSIGNED: According to Ki-67, patients were in the low (LR)-, intermediate (IR)-, and high-risk (HR) groups in 40%, 36%, and 24% of the cases. The Prosigna gene signature assay assessed the risk of recurrence as LR for 45% of the patients, IR for 35%, and HR for 20%. The most frequent intrinsic subtypes were luminal A in 73% and luminal B in 24% of the patients. A moderate correlation was found between Prosigna and Ki-67 scores with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.51. In the overall cohort, 47% of the Ki-67-based therapy decision would correspond to those based on the Prosigna score. After exclusion of IR patients, matching of low/low or high/high results was observed in 57% of the cases.
UNASSIGNED: According to the present study, there is only limited concordance regarding the risk group stratification between Ki-67 and Prosigna-based risk assessment. The relevance and frequency of premenopausal breast cancer emphasizes the need for further evaluation of gene expression analyses in this setting and the correlation with classic clinicopathological parameters regarding therapy decision-making.

BACKGROUND: HER2-low has emerged as a new predictive biomarker in metastatic breast cancer. However, its prognostic value in early-stage carcinomas needs to be revisited. We aimed to evaluate the association of HER2-low carcinomas with PAM50 risk groups combined with clinicopathological variables in early breast cancer.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 332 patients with early-stage breast cancer that underwent PAM50 signature analysis between 2015 and 2021at Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre (Madrid, Spain). Clinical and pathological variables were collected from medical records. After adjusting for potential confounders, we estimated Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval for high-risk PAM50 subgroup, comparing HER2-low versus HER2-zero carcinomas by multivariable logistic regression. P values below 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.
RESULTS: 192 (57%) patients were classified as HER2-low carcinomas. Median follow-up was 34 months. Adjusted OR for high-risk PAM50 when comparing HER2-low versus HER2-zero carcinomas was 1.31 (95% CI: 0.75-2.30, p = 0.33). The multivariable model detected significant associations for Ki-67% (≥20% vs. <20%: OR = 4.03, 95% CI: 2.15-7.56, p < 0.001), T staging category (T2/T3 vs. T1: OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.96-6.04, p < 0.001), progesterone receptor (PR ≥ 20% vs. <20%: OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23-0.83, p = 0.01), nodal staging category (N+ vs. N0: OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.89-7.62, p < 0.001) and histological grade (grade 2 vs. 1: OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.01-5.73, p = 0.04; grade 3 vs 1: OR = 5.40, 95%CI: 1.98-14.60, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this early-stage breast cancer cohort, HER2-low was not associated with a high-risk PAM50 compared to HER2-zero carcinomas. Ki-67 ≥ 20%, T2/T3, histological grade 2/3, N+ and PR<20% were significantly associated to a high-risk PAM50.

In intermediate risk hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative breast cancer (BC), the decision regarding adjuvant chemotherapy might be facilitated by multigene expression tests. In all, 142 intermediate risk BCs were investigated using the PAM50-based multigene expression test Prosigna® in a prospective multicentric study. In 119/142 cases, Prosigna® molecular subtyping was compared with local and two central (C1 and C6) molecular-like subtypes relying on both immunohistochemistry (IHC; HRs, HER2, Ki-67) and IHC + tumor grade (IHC+G) subtyping. According to local IHC, 35.4% were Luminal A-like and 64.6% Luminal B-like subtypes (local IHC+G subtype: 31.9% Luminal A-like; 68.1% Luminal B-like). In contrast to local and C1 subtyping, C6 classified >2/3 of cases as Luminal A-like. Pairwise agreement between Prosigna® subtyping and molecular-like subtypes was fair to moderate depending on molecular-like subtyping method and center. The best agreement was observed between Prosigna® (53.8% Luminal A; 44.5% Luminal B) and C1 surrogate subtyping (Cohen’s kappa = 0.455). Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested to 44.2% and 88.6% of Prosigna® Luminal A and Luminal B cases, respectively. Out of all Luminal A-like cases (locally IHC/IHC+G subtyping), adjuvant chemotherapy was recommended if Prosigna® testing classified as Prosigna® Luminal A at high / intermediate risk or upgraded to Prosigna® Luminal B.

Molecular signatures to guide decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy are recommended in early ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The objective of this study was to assess what impact gene-expression-based risk testing has had following its recommendation by Swedish national guidelines. Postmenopausal women with ER-positive, HER2-negative and node negative breast cancer at intermediate clinical risk and eligible for chemotherapy were identified retrospectively from five Swedish hospitals. Tumor characteristics, results from Prosigna® test and final treatment decision were available for all patients. Treatment recommendations were compared with the last version of regional guidelines before the introduction of routine risk signature testing. Among the 360 included patients, 41% (n = 148) had a change in decision for adjuvant treatment based on Prosigna® test result. Out of the patients with clinical indication for adjuvant chemotherapy, 52% (n = 118) could avoid treatment based on results from Prosigna® test. On the contrary, 23% (n = 30) of the patients with no indication were escalated to receive adjuvant chemotherapy after testing. Ki67 could not distinguish between the Prosigna® risk groups or intrinsic subtypes and did not significantly differ between patients in which decision for adjuvant therapy was changed based on the test results. In conclusion, we report the first real-world data from implementation of gene-expression-based risk assessment in a Swedish context, which may facilitate the optimization of future versions of the national guidelines.

The purpose of this guideline is to determine the clinical utility of multigene profiling assays in individuals with early-stage invasive breast cancer.
This guideline was developed by Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario)\'s Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) through a systematic review of relevant literature, patient- and caregiver-specific consultation and internal and external reviews. Recommendation 1: In patients with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, clinicians should consider using multigene profiling assays (i.e., Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna, EndoPredict, and the Breast Cancer Index) to help guide the use of systemic therapy. Recommendation 2: In patients with early-stage node-negative ER-positive/HER2-negative disease, clinicians may use a low-risk result from Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna, EndoPredict/EPclin, or Breast Cancer Index assays to support a decision not to use adjuvant chemotherapy. Recommendation 3: In patients with node-negative ER-positive/HER2-negative disease, clinicians may use a high-risk result from Oncotype DX to support a decision to offer chemotherapy. A high Oncotype DX recurrence score is capable of predicting adjuvant chemotherapy benefit. Recommendation 4: In postmenopausal patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative tumours and one to three nodes involved (N1a disease), clinicians may withhold chemotherapy based on a low-risk Oncotype DX or MammaPrint score if the decision is supported by other clinical, pathological, or patient-related factors. Recommendation 5: The evidence to support the use of molecular profiling to select the duration of endocrine therapy is evolving. In patients with ER-positive disease, clinicians may consider using a Breast Cancer Index (H/I) high assay result to support a decision to extend adjuvant endocrine therapy if the decision is supported by other clinical, pathological, or patient-related factors.

The PAM50 gene expression subtypes and the associated risk of recurrence (ROR) score are used to predict the risk of recurrence and the benefits of adjuvant therapy in early-stage breast cancer. The Prosigna assay includes the PAM50 subtypes along with their clinicopathological features, and is approved for treatment recommendations for adjuvant hormonal therapy and chemotherapy in hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer. The Prosigna test utilizes RNA extracted from macrodissected tumor cells obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections. However, RNA extracted from fresh-frozen (FF) bulk tissue without macrodissection is widely used for research purposes, and yields high-quality RNA for downstream analyses. To investigate the impact of the sample preparation approach on ROR scores, we analyzed 94 breast carcinomas included in an observational study that had available gene expression data from macrodissected FFPE tissue and FF bulk tumor tissue, along with the clinically approved Prosigna scores for the node-negative, hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative cases (n = 54). ROR scores were calculated in R; the resulting two sets of scores from FFPE and FF samples were compared, and treatment recommendations were evaluated. Overall, ROR scores calculated based on the macrodissected FFPE tissue were consistent with the Prosigna scores. However, analyses from bulk tissue yielded a higher proportion of cases classified as normal-like; these were samples with relatively low tumor cellularity, leading to lower ROR scores. When comparing ROR scores (low, intermediate, and high), discordant cases between the two preparation approaches were revealed among the luminal tumors; the recommended treatment would have changed in a minority of cases.

Patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative, node negative (NN) breast cancer may be offered a gene expression profiling (GEP) test to determine recurrence risk and benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. We developed a clinical-pathologic (CP) model to predict genomic recurrence risk and examined its performance characteristics.
Patients diagnosed with HR-positive, HER2-negative, NN breast cancer with a tumour size < 30 mm and who underwent a GEP test [OncotypeDX or Prosigna] in Alberta from October 2017 through March 2019 were identified. Patients were classified as low or high genomic risk. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the associations of CP factors with genomic risk. A CP model was developed using coefficients of regression and sensitivity analyses were performed.
A total of 366 patients were eligible (135 were tested using OncotypeDX and 231 with Prosigna). Of these, 64 (17.5%) patients were classified as high genomic risk. On multivariable logistic regression, tumour size > 20 mm (odds ratio [OR], 3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.84-6.98; P<0.001), low expression of progesterone receptor (OR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.76-6.82; P<0.001), and histological grade III (OR, 7.24; 95% CI, 3.82-13.70; P<0.001) predicted high genomic risk. A CP model using these variables was developed to provide a score of 0-4. A CP cut-point of 0, identified 56% of genomic low risk patients with a specificity of 98.4%.
A CP model could be used to narrow the population of breast cancer patients undergoing GEP testing.

Oncotype Dx® (ODX) is the most used prognostic and predictive assay for ER + breast cancer (BCa) and is categorized into low (< 18), intermediate (18 to 30), or high (≥31) risk of recurrence. Prosigna® is a prognostic signature to estimate distant recurrence-free survival for stage I/II, ER+ cancer in postmenopausal women treated with adjuvant therapy. The goal of the study is to assess the agreement between ODX and Prosigna®.
100 previously ODX classified peri and postmenopausal, early-stage (I or II) BCa patients were retrieved and Prosigna assay was performed on archived tumor blocks on a NanoString nCounter® DX Analysis System.
ODX assay was assigned as follows: 57% low, 39% intermediate, and 4% high. There were 8% two-step disagreements (high to low or vice versa) between ODX and Prosigna®; and 42% one-step disagreement (low to intermediate or vice versa). 78% were classified by Prosigna as luminal A and 22% as luminal B. The majority of luminal A cases (67/78; 85.9%) had low ROR score whereas ODX classified almost two-thirds (50/78~ 64%) as low RS. An insignificant percentage of luminal B cases (1/22 - 4.5%) were classified as high RS by ODX, and a modest percentage were classified as high ROR by Prosigna (15/22 ~68%). According to our follow up results, recurrence was detected in three cases. In all three cases; Prosigna was a better indicator of recurrence.
The agreement between ODX and Prosigna® is low, and this has management implications, especially when chemotherapy is needed.