UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Prognostic and predictive factors in early, nonmetastatic breast cancer

Authors
Theodoros Foukakis, MD, PhD
Jonas Bergh, MD, PhD, FRCP (London UK)
Section Editor
Daniel F Hayes, MD
Deputy Editor
Sadhna R Vora, MD

INTRODUCTION

The widespread application of adjuvant systemic therapy has reduced mortality from breast cancer in the Western world [1-4]. Unfortunately, many patients are not treated appropriately, with some overtreated (when they would have been cured solely with local therapy) and others undertreated (eg, not treated in the adjuvant setting or treated with drugs that are ultimately not active). It would be of great value to have reliable prognostic factors that could help select those patients most at risk for recurrence. In addition, clinically applicable predictive factors would aid in the personalization of adjuvant therapy by identifying which therapies would be most likely of benefit to patients and which patients would not benefit, potentially sparing them from the unnecessary exposure to potentially toxic and expensive therapies.

By definition, a prognostic factor is capable of providing information on clinical outcome at the time of diagnosis, independent of therapy. Such markers are usually indicators of growth, invasion, and metastatic potential [5,6]. By contrast, a predictive factor is capable of providing information on the likelihood of response to a given therapeutic modality. Such markers are either within the target of the treatment or serve as modulators or epiphenomena related to expression and/or function of the target. Although they can be separately classified, several factors in breast cancer are both prognostic and predictive (eg, the presence of overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]).

This topic will review prognostic and predictive factors that are relevant for patients diagnosed with early, nonmetastatic breast cancer. An overview of the treatment of breast cancer and relevant factors for patients with metastatic breast cancer is discussed [7,8] separately.

(See "Overview of the treatment of newly diagnosed, non-metastatic breast cancer".)

(See "Systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer: General principles".)

                                            

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Nov 2016. | This topic last updated: Thu Sep 15 00:00:00 GMT+00:00 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Peto R, Davies C, et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012; 379:432.
  2. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Davies C, Godwin J, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 378:771.
  3. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Darby S, McGale P, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 378:1707.
  4. Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, et al. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2011; 378:1461.
  5. Gasparini G, Pozza F, Harris AL. Evaluating the potential usefulness of new prognostic and predictive indicators in node-negative breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1206.
  6. Hayes DF, Trock B, Harris AL. Assessing the clinical impact of prognostic factors: when is "statistically significant" clinically useful? Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998; 52:305.
  7. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1999.
  8. Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:1183.
  9. Febbo PG, Ladanyi M, Aldape KD, et al. NCCN Task Force report: Evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2011; 9 Suppl 5:S1.
  10. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009; 11:3.
  11. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). J Proteome Res 2011; 10:3429.
  12. Sargent DJ, Conley BA, Allegra C, Collette L. Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:2020.
  13. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:1446.
  14. NIH consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 1991; 265:391.
  15. Adami HO, Malker B, Holmberg L, et al. The relation between survival and age at diagnosis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1986; 315:559.
  16. Partridge AH, Gelber S, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, et al. Effect of age on breast cancer outcomes in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: results from a herceptin adjuvant trial. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:2692.
  17. Fredholm H, Eaker S, Frisell J, et al. Breast cancer in young women: poor survival despite intensive treatment. PLoS One 2009; 4:e7695.
  18. Anders CK, Hsu DS, Broadwater G, et al. Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3324.
  19. Partridge AH, Hughes ME, Warner ET, et al. Subtype-Dependent Relationship Between Young Age at Diagnosis and Breast Cancer Survival. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:3308.
  20. Aalders KC, Postma EL, Strobbe LJ, et al. Contemporary Locoregional Recurrence Rates in Young Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:2107.
  21. Bastiaannet E, Liefers GJ, de Craen AJ, et al. Breast cancer in elderly compared to younger patients in the Netherlands: stage at diagnosis, treatment and survival in 127,805 unselected patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 124:801.
  22. Eaker S, Dickman PW, Bergkvist L, et al. Differences in management of older women influence breast cancer survival: results from a population-based database in Sweden. PLoS Med 2006; 3:e25.
  23. van de Water W, Markopoulos C, van de Velde CJ, et al. Association between age at diagnosis and disease-specific mortality among postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. JAMA 2012; 307:590.
  24. Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:2053.
  25. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61:212.
  26. Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Clark AS, et al. Characteristics associated with differences in survival among black and white women with breast cancer. JAMA 2013; 310:389.
  27. Killelea BK, Yang VQ, Wang SY, et al. Racial Differences in the Use and Outcome of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Results From the National Cancer Data Base. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:4267.
  28. Keenan T, Moy B, Mroz EA, et al. Comparison of the Genomic Landscape Between Primary Breast Cancer in African American Versus White Women and the Association of Racial Differences With Tumor Recurrence. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:3621.
  29. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 2006; 295:2492.
  30. Passarelli MN, Newcomb PA, Hampton JM, et al. Cigarette Smoking Before and After Breast Cancer Diagnosis: Mortality From Breast Cancer and Smoking-Related Diseases. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:1315.
  31. Joensuu H, Lehtimäki T, Holli K, et al. Risk for distant recurrence of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods. JAMA 2004; 292:1064.
  32. Shen Y, Yang Y, Inoue LY, et al. Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:1195.
  33. Wishart GC, Greenberg DC, Britton PD, et al. Screen-detected vs symptomatic breast cancer: is improved survival due to stage migration alone? Br J Cancer 2008; 98:1741.
  34. Gierach GL, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, et al. Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104:1218.
  35. Weissenbacher TM, Zschage M, Janni W, et al. Multicentric and multifocal versus unifocal breast cancer: is the tumor-node-metastasis classification justified? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 122:27.
  36. Lynch SP, Lei X, Chavez-MacGregor M, et al. Multifocality and multicentricity in breast cancer and survival outcomes. Ann Oncol 2012; 23:3063.
  37. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al. Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:3628.
  38. Newman LA. Epidemiology of locally advanced breast cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2009; 19:195.
  39. Fisher B, Slack NH, Bross ID. Cancer of the breast: size of neoplasm and prognosis. Cancer 1969; 24:1071.
  40. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989; 63:181.
  41. Koscielny S, Tubiana M, Lê MG, et al. Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination. Br J Cancer 1984; 49:709.
  42. Foulkes WD, Grainge MJ, Rakha EA, et al. Tumor size is an unreliable predictor of prognosis in basal-like breast cancers and does not correlate closely with lymph node status. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 117:199.
  43. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66:7.
  44. Andersson Y, Frisell J, Sylvan M, et al. Breast cancer survival in relation to the metastatic tumor burden in axillary lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:2868.
  45. de Boer M, van Dijck JA, Bult P, et al. Breast cancer prognosis and occult lymph node metastases, isolated tumor cells, and micrometastases. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102:410.
  46. Weaver DL, Ashikaga T, Krag DN, et al. Effect of occult metastases on survival in node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:412.
  47. Li CI, Uribe DJ, Daling JR. Clinical characteristics of different histologic types of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2005; 93:1046.
  48. Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E, et al. Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3006.
  49. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19:403.
  50. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3153.
  51. Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Galea M, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. III. Vascular invasion: relationship with recurrence and survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1994; 24:41.
  52. Ejlertsen B, Jensen MB, Rank F, et al. Population-based study of peritumoral lymphovascular invasion and outcome among patients with operable breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:729.
  53. Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gusterson BA, et al. Adverse prognostic value of peritumoral vascular invasion: is it abrogated by adequate endocrine adjuvant therapy? Results from two International Breast Cancer Study Group randomized trials of chemoendocrine adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2010; 21:245.
  54. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:1474.
  55. Pertschuk LP, Kim DS, Nayer K, et al. Immunocytochemical estrogen and progestin receptor assays in breast cancer with monoclonal antibodies. Histopathologic, demographic, and biochemical correlations and relationship to endocrine response and survival. Cancer 1990; 66:1663.
  56. Bartlett JM, Brookes CL, Robson T, et al. Estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor as predictive biomarkers of response to endocrine therapy: a prospectively powered pathology study in the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:1531.
  57. Colzani E, Liljegren A, Johansson AL, et al. Prognosis of patients with breast cancer: causes of death and effects of time since diagnosis, age, and tumor characteristics. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:4014.
  58. Colleoni M, Sun Z, Price KN, et al. Annual Hazard Rates of Recurrence for Breast Cancer During 24 Years of Follow-Up: Results From the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials I to V. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:927.
  59. Insa A, Lluch A, Prosper F, et al. Prognostic factors predicting survival from first recurrence in patients with metastatic breast cancer: analysis of 439 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999; 56:67.
  60. Ferrero-Poüs M, Trassard M, Le Doussal V, et al. Comparison of enzyme immunoassay and immunohistochemical measurements of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer patients. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2001; 9:267.
  61. Chu KC, Anderson WF, Fritz A, et al. Frequency distributions of breast cancer characteristics classified by estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status for eight racial/ethnic groups. Cancer 2001; 92:37.
  62. Knoop AS, Bentzen SM, Nielsen MM, et al. Value of epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2, p53, and steroid receptors in predicting the efficacy of tamoxifen in high-risk postmenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:3376.
  63. Wenger CR, Beardslee S, Owens MA, et al. DNA ploidy, S-phase, and steroid receptors in more than 127,000 breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993; 28:9.
  64. Falette N, Paperin MP, Treilleux I, et al. Prognostic value of P53 gene mutations in a large series of node-negative breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 1998; 58:1451.
  65. Elledge RM, Fuqua SA, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic significance of p53 gene alterations in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993; 26:225.
  66. Andrulis IL, Bull SB, Blackstein ME, et al. neu/erbB-2 amplification identifies a poor-prognosis group of women with node-negative breast cancer. Toronto Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:1340.
  67. Tandon AK, Clark GM, Chamness GC, et al. HER-2/neu oncogene protein and prognosis in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7:1120.
  68. Ferrero-Poüs M, Hacène K, Bouchet C, et al. Relationship between c-erbB-2 and other tumor characteristics in breast cancer prognosis. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:4745.
  69. Bolla M, Chedin M, Souvignet C, et al. Estimation of epidermal growth factor receptor in 177 breast cancers: correlation with prognostic factors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1990; 16:97.
  70. Pawlowski V, Révillion F, Hebbar M, et al. Prognostic value of the type I growth factor receptors in a large series of human primary breast cancers quantified with a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:4217.
  71. Clark GM, McGuire WL, Hubay CA, et al. Progesterone receptors as a prognostic factor in Stage II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1983; 309:1343.
  72. Purdie CA, Quinlan P, Jordan LB, et al. Progesterone receptor expression is an independent prognostic variable in early breast cancer: a population-based study. Br J Cancer 2014; 110:565.
  73. Thakkar JP, Mehta DG. A review of an unfavorable subset of breast cancer: estrogen receptor positive progesterone receptor negative. Oncologist 2011; 16:276.
  74. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:5287.
  75. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:118.
  76. Gusterson BA, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, et al. Prognostic importance of c-erbB-2 expression in breast cancer. International (Ludwig) Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10:1049.
  77. Chia S, Norris B, Speers C, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression as a prognostic factor in a large tissue microarray series of node-negative breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:5697.
  78. Prat A, Parker JS, Karginova O, et al. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of the claudin-low intrinsic subtype of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12:R68.
  79. Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE, et al. Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 2004; 203:661.
  80. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406:747.
  81. Perreard L, Fan C, Quackenbush JF, et al. Classification and risk stratification of invasive breast carcinomas using a real-time quantitative RT-PCR assay. Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8:R23.
  82. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001; 98:10869.
  83. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100:8418.
  84. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100:10393.
  85. Yu K, Lee CH, Tan PH, Tan P. Conservation of breast cancer molecular subtypes and transcriptional patterns of tumor progression across distinct ethnic populations. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10:5508.
  86. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012; 490:61.
  87. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, et al. Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:560.
  88. Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS, et al. The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics 2006; 7:96.
  89. Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, et al. Definition of clinically distinct molecular subtypes in estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas through genomic grade. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1239.
  90. Voduc KD, Cheang MC, Tyldesley S, et al. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1684.
  91. O'Brien KM, Cole SR, Tse CK, et al. Intrinsic breast tumor subtypes, race, and long-term survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:6100.
  92. Teschendorff AE, Miremadi A, Pinder SE, et al. An immune response gene expression module identifies a good prognosis subtype in estrogen receptor negative breast cancer. Genome Biol 2007; 8:R157.
  93. Banerji S, Cibulskis K, Rangel-Escareno C, et al. Sequence analysis of mutations and translocations across breast cancer subtypes. Nature 2012; 486:405.
  94. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 2012; 486:346.
  95. Ding L, Ellis MJ, Li S, et al. Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 2010; 464:999.
  96. Ellis MJ, Ding L, Shen D, et al. Whole-genome analysis informs breast cancer response to aromatase inhibition. Nature 2012; 486:353.
  97. Shah SP, Roth A, Goya R, et al. The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers. Nature 2012; 486:395.
  98. Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, et al. Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:1134.
  99. Bartlett JM, Bayani J, Marshall A, et al. Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 108.
  100. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:2817.
  101. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2005.
  102. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:3726.
  103. Mamounas EP, Tang G, Fisher B, et al. Association between the 21-gene recurrence score assay and risk of locoregional recurrence in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1677.
  104. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1829.
  105. Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M, et al. West German Study Group Phase III PlanB Trial: First Prospective Outcome Data for the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay and Concordance of Prognostic Markers by Central and Local Pathology Assessment. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:2341.
  106. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11:55.
  107. Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R, et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17:6012.
  108. Dubsky P, Brase JC, Jakesz R, et al. The EndoPredict score provides prognostic information on late distant metastases in ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2013; 109:2959.
  109. Denkert C, Kronenwett R, Schlake W, et al. Decentral gene expression analysis for ER+/Her2- breast cancer: results of a proficiency testing program for the EndoPredict assay. Virchows Arch 2012; 460:251.
  110. Müller BM, Brase JC, Haufe F, et al. Comparison of the RNA-based EndoPredict multigene test between core biopsies and corresponding surgical breast cancer sections. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65:660.
  111. Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD, et al. A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell 2004; 5:607.
  112. Jansen MP, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, et al. HOXB13-to-IL17BR expression ratio is related with tumor aggressiveness and response to tamoxifen of recurrent breast cancer: a retrospective study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:662.
  113. Sgroi DC, Sestak I, Cuzick J, et al. Prediction of late distant recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: a prospective comparison of the breast-cancer index (BCI) assay, 21-gene recurrence score, and IHC4 in the TransATAC study population. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14:1067.
  114. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:1160.
  115. Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:5222.
  116. Chia SK, Bramwell VH, Tu D, et al. A 50-gene intrinsic subtype classifier for prognosis and prediction of benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:4465.
  117. Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E, et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:2783.
  118. Gnant M, Filipits M, Mlineritsch B et al. Clinical validation of the PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score for predicting residual risk of distant-recurrence (DR) after endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with ER+ early breast cancer (EBC): An ABCSG study. Cancer Res 2012; 72:P2-10-02.
  119. Gnant M, Filipits M, Greil R, et al. Predicting distant recurrence in receptor-positive breast cancer patients with limited clinicopathological risk: using the PAM50 Risk of Recurrence score in 1478 postmenopausal patients of the ABCSG-8 trial treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Ann Oncol 2014; 25:339.
  120. van 't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002; 415:530.
  121. Mook S, Schmidt MK, Weigelt B, et al. The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. Ann Oncol 2010; 21:717.
  122. Cardoso F, Van't Veer L, Rutgers E, et al. Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:729.
  123. Piccart M, Rutgers E, van't Veer L, Slaets L. Primary analysis of the EORTC 10041/ BIG 3-04 MINDACT study: a prospective, randomized study evaluating the clinical utility of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) combined with common clinical-pathological criteria for selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive nodes. AACR 2016.
  124. Cardoso F, van't Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, et al. 70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:717.
  125. Mook S, Knauer M, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, et al. Metastatic potential of T1 breast cancer can be predicted by the 70-gene MammaPrint signature. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17:1406.
  126. Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:262.
  127. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Roche H, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of genomic grade index, Ki67 expression and mitotic activity index in early node-positive breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:625.
  128. Ivshina AV, George J, Senko O, et al. Genetic reclassification of histologic grade delineates new clinical subtypes of breast cancer. Cancer Res 2006; 66:10292.
  129. Klintman M, Bendahl PO, Grabau D, et al. The prognostic value of Ki67 is dependent on estrogen receptor status and histological grade in premenopausal patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2010; 23:251.
  130. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:736.
  131. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, et al. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:4273.
  132. Luporsi E, André F, Spyratos F, et al. Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 132:895.
  133. de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr, et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer 2007; 96:1504.
  134. Stuart-Harris R, Caldas C, Pinder SE, Pharoah P. Proliferation markers and survival in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies in 32,825 patients. Breast 2008; 17:323.
  135. Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM, et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105:1897.
  136. Nielsen TO, Polley M-YC, on behalf of the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group of BIG-NABCG. An international Ki67 reproducibility study: Harmonizing scoring methodology. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2013; S2-07.
  137. Guiu S, Michiels S, André F, et al. Molecular subclasses of breast cancer: how do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Statement. Ann Oncol 2012; 23:2997.
  138. Stephens RW, Brünner N, Jänicke F, Schmitt M. The urokinase plasminogen activator system as a target for prognostic studies in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998; 52:99.
  139. Malmström P, Bendahl PO, Boiesen P, et al. S-phase fraction and urokinase plasminogen activator are better markers for distant recurrences than Nottingham Prognostic Index and histologic grade in a prospective study of premenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:2010.
  140. Foekens JA, Peters HA, Look MP, et al. The urokinase system of plasminogen activation and prognosis in 2780 breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2000; 60:636.
  141. Chappuis PO, Dieterich B, Sciretta V, et al. Functional evaluation of plasmin formation in primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:2731.
  142. Harbeck N, Kates RE, Schmitt M. Clinical relevance of invasion factors urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 for individualized therapy decisions in primary breast cancer is greatest when used in combination. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:1000.
  143. Jänicke F, Prechtl A, Thomssen C, et al. Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:913.
  144. Harbeck N, Schmitt M, Meisner C, et al. Ten-year analysis of the prospective multicentre Chemo-N0 trial validates American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-recommended biomarkers uPA and PAI-1 for therapy decision making in node-negative breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49:1825.
  145. Thomssen C, Harbeck N, Dittmer J, et al. Feasibility of measuring the prognostic factors uPA and PAI-1 in core needle biopsy breast cancer specimens. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:1028.
  146. Visscher DW, Sarkar F, LoRusso P, et al. Immunohistologic evaluation of invasion-associated proteases in breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 1993; 6:302.
  147. Petitjean A, Mathe E, Kato S, et al. Impact of mutant p53 functional properties on TP53 mutation patterns and tumor phenotype: lessons from recent developments in the IARC TP53 database. Hum Mutat 2007; 28:622.
  148. Petitjean A, Achatz MI, Borresen-Dale AL, et al. TP53 mutations in human cancers: functional selection and impact on cancer prognosis and outcomes. Oncogene 2007; 26:2157.
  149. Bonnefoi H, Piccart M, Bogaerts J, et al. TP53 status for prediction of sensitivity to taxane versus non-taxane neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12:527.
  150. Olivier M, Langerød A, Carrieri P, et al. The clinical value of somatic TP53 gene mutations in 1,794 patients with breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:1157.
  151. Sjögren S, Inganäs M, Norberg T, et al. The p53 gene in breast cancer: prognostic value of complementary DNA sequencing versus immunohistochemistry. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88:173.
  152. Leyland-Jones B, Smith BR. Serum HER2 testing in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: the death knell tolls. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12:286.
  153. Tuck AB, O'Malley FP, Singhal H, et al. Osteopontin expression in a group of lymph node negative breast cancer patients. Int J Cancer 1998; 79:502.
  154. Heimann R, Hellman S. Individual characterisation of the metastatic capacity of human breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36:1631.
  155. Heimann R, Lan F, McBride R, Hellman S. Separating favorable from unfavorable prognostic markers in breast cancer: the role of E-cadherin. Cancer Res 2000; 60:298.
  156. Heimann R, Ferguson DJ, Hellman S. The relationship between nm23, angiogenesis, and the metastatic proclivity of node-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 1998; 58:2766.
  157. Yu H, Levesque MA, Clark GM, Diamandis EP. Enhanced prediction of breast cancer prognosis by evaluating expression of p53 and prostate-specific antigen in combination. Br J Cancer 1999; 81:490.
  158. Remacle A, McCarthy K, Noël A, et al. High levels of TIMP-2 correlate with adverse prognosis in breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2000; 89:118.
  159. Ueno T, Toi M, Koike M, et al. Tissue factor expression in breast cancer tissues: its correlation with prognosis and plasma concentration. Br J Cancer 2000; 83:164.
  160. Yoshida R, Kimura N, Harada Y, Ohuchi N. The loss of E-cadherin, alpha- and beta-catenin expression is associated with metastasis and poor prognosis in invasive breast cancer. Int J Oncol 2001; 18:513.
  161. Lipton A, Ali SM, Leitzel K, et al. Elevated plasma tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 level predicts decreased response and survival in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 2007; 109:1933.
  162. Emi M, Yoshimoto M, Sato T, et al. Allelic loss at 1p34, 13q12, 17p13.3, and 17q21.1 correlates with poor postoperative prognosis in breast cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1999; 26:134.
  163. Utada Y, Emi M, Yoshimoto M, et al. Allelic loss at 1p34-36 predicts poor prognosis in node-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:3193.
  164. Hui R, Macmillan RD, Kenny FS, et al. INK4a gene expression and methylation in primary breast cancer: overexpression of p16INK4a messenger RNA is a marker of poor prognosis. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:2777.
  165. Yang X, Yan L, Davidson NE. DNA methylation in breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2001; 8:115.
  166. Gerber B, Krause A, Müller H, et al. Simultaneous immunohistochemical detection of tumor cells in lymph nodes and bone marrow aspirates in breast cancer and its correlation with other prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:960.
  167. Bidard FC, Vincent-Salomon A, Gomme S, et al. Disseminated tumor cells of breast cancer patients: a strong prognostic factor for distant and local relapse. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:3306.
  168. Braun S, Vogl FD, Naume B, et al. A pooled analysis of bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:793.
  169. Janni W, Vogl FD, Wiedswang G, et al. Persistence of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients predicts increased risk for relapse--a European pooled analysis. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17:2967.
  170. Giuliano AE, Hawes D, Ballman KV, et al. Association of occult metastases in sentinel lymph nodes and bone marrow with survival among women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. JAMA 2011; 306:385.
  171. Falck AK, Bendahl PO, Ingvar C, et al. Analysis of and prognostic information from disseminated tumour cells in bone marrow in primary breast cancer: a prospective observational study. BMC Cancer 2012; 12:403.
  172. Krishnamurthy S, Cristofanilli M, Singh B, et al. Detection of minimal residual disease in blood and bone marrow in early stage breast cancer. Cancer 2010; 116:3330.
  173. Hartkopf AD, Taran FA, Wallwiener M, et al. Prognostic relevance of disseminated tumour cells from the bone marrow of early stage breast cancer patients - results from a large single-centre analysis. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50:2550.
  174. Lucci A, Hall CS, Lodhi AK, et al. Circulating tumour cells in non-metastatic breast cancer: a prospective study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13:688.
  175. Rack B, Schindlbeck C, Jückstock J, et al. Circulating tumor cells predict survival in early average-to-high risk breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106.
  176. Xenidis N, Perraki M, Kafousi M, et al. Predictive and prognostic value of peripheral blood cytokeratin-19 mRNA-positive cells detected by real-time polymerase chain reaction in node-negative breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:3756.
  177. Pierga JY, Bidard FC, Mathiot C, et al. Circulating tumor cell detection predicts early metastatic relapse after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in large operable and locally advanced breast cancer in a phase II randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:7004.
  178. Wong NS, Kahn HJ, Zhang L, et al. Prognostic significance of circulating tumour cells enumerated after filtration enrichment in early and metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 99:63.
  179. Ignatiadis M, Xenidis N, Perraki M, et al. Different prognostic value of cytokeratin-19 mRNA positive circulating tumor cells according to estrogen receptor and HER2 status in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:5194.
  180. Pachmann K, Camara O, Kavallaris A, et al. Monitoring the response of circulating epithelial tumor cells to adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer allows detection of patients at risk of early relapse. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:1208.
  181. LHRH-agonists in Early Breast Cancer Overview group, Cuzick J, Ambroisine L, et al. Use of luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised adjuvant trials. Lancet 2007; 369:1711.
  182. Davidson NE, O'Neill AM, Vukov AM, et al. Chemoendocrine therapy for premenopausal women with axillary lymph node-positive, steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: results from INT 0101 (E5188). J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:5973.
  183. Arriagada R, Lê MG, Spielmann M, et al. Randomized trial of adjuvant ovarian suppression in 926 premenopausal patients with early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2005; 16:389.
  184. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG), Castiglione-Gertsch M, O'Neill A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy followed by goserelin versus either modality alone for premenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:1833.
  185. Moore HC, Unger JM, Phillips KA, et al. Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:923.
  186. Wells CA, Sloane JP, Coleman D, et al. Consistency of staining and reporting of oestrogen receptor immunocytochemistry within the European Union--an inter-laboratory study. Virchows Arch 2004; 445:119.
  187. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1659.
  188. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1673.
  189. Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:1273.
  190. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:783.
  191. Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1783.
  192. Baselga J, Cortés J, Kim SB, et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:109.