Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data

Abstract Background Breast cancer is one of the three most common cancers worldwide and is the most common malignancy in women. Treatment approaches for breast cancer are diverse and varied. Clinicians must balance risks and benefits when deciding treatments, and models have been developed to suppor...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Avirup Chowdhury, Paul D. Pharoah, Oscar M. Rueda
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2023-02-01
Series:Breast Cancer Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-023-01612-9
_version_ 1811165640207106048
author Avirup Chowdhury
Paul D. Pharoah
Oscar M. Rueda
author_facet Avirup Chowdhury
Paul D. Pharoah
Oscar M. Rueda
author_sort Avirup Chowdhury
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Breast cancer is one of the three most common cancers worldwide and is the most common malignancy in women. Treatment approaches for breast cancer are diverse and varied. Clinicians must balance risks and benefits when deciding treatments, and models have been developed to support this decision-making. Genomic risk scores (GRSs) may offer greater clinical value than standard clinicopathological models, but there is limited evidence as to whether these models perform better than the current clinical standard of care. Methods PREDICT and GRSs were adapted using data from the original papers. Univariable Cox proportional hazards models were produced with breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) as the outcome. Independent predictors of BCSS were used to build multivariable models with PREDICT. Signatures which provided independent prognostic information in multivariable models were incorporated into the PREDICT algorithm and assessed for calibration, discrimination and reclassification. Results EndoPredict, MammaPrint and Prosigna demonstrated prognostic power independent of PREDICT in multivariable models for ER-positive patients; no score predicted BCSS in ER-negative patients. Incorporating these models into PREDICT had only a modest impact upon calibration (with absolute improvements of 0.2–0.8%), discrimination (with no statistically significant c-index improvements) and reclassification (with 4–10% of patients being reclassified). Conclusion Addition of GRSs to PREDICT had limited impact on model fit or treatment received. This analysis does not support widespread adoption of current GRSs based on our implementations of commercial products.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T15:39:56Z
format Article
id doaj.art-75e9314fd94f4cb1ae2212442090234b
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1465-542X
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T15:39:56Z
publishDate 2023-02-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Breast Cancer Research
spelling doaj.art-75e9314fd94f4cb1ae2212442090234b2023-02-12T12:26:27ZengBMCBreast Cancer Research1465-542X2023-02-012511810.1186/s13058-023-01612-9Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression dataAvirup Chowdhury0Paul D. Pharoah1Oscar M. Rueda2Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of CambridgeCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of CambridgeMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of CambridgeAbstract Background Breast cancer is one of the three most common cancers worldwide and is the most common malignancy in women. Treatment approaches for breast cancer are diverse and varied. Clinicians must balance risks and benefits when deciding treatments, and models have been developed to support this decision-making. Genomic risk scores (GRSs) may offer greater clinical value than standard clinicopathological models, but there is limited evidence as to whether these models perform better than the current clinical standard of care. Methods PREDICT and GRSs were adapted using data from the original papers. Univariable Cox proportional hazards models were produced with breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) as the outcome. Independent predictors of BCSS were used to build multivariable models with PREDICT. Signatures which provided independent prognostic information in multivariable models were incorporated into the PREDICT algorithm and assessed for calibration, discrimination and reclassification. Results EndoPredict, MammaPrint and Prosigna demonstrated prognostic power independent of PREDICT in multivariable models for ER-positive patients; no score predicted BCSS in ER-negative patients. Incorporating these models into PREDICT had only a modest impact upon calibration (with absolute improvements of 0.2–0.8%), discrimination (with no statistically significant c-index improvements) and reclassification (with 4–10% of patients being reclassified). Conclusion Addition of GRSs to PREDICT had limited impact on model fit or treatment received. This analysis does not support widespread adoption of current GRSs based on our implementations of commercial products.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-023-01612-9PREDICTBreast cancerPrognosisGenomic scoreChemotherapyCalibration
spellingShingle Avirup Chowdhury
Paul D. Pharoah
Oscar M. Rueda
Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data
Breast Cancer Research
PREDICT
Breast cancer
Prognosis
Genomic score
Chemotherapy
Calibration
title Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data
title_full Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data
title_fullStr Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data
title_short Evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data
title_sort evaluation and comparison of different breast cancer prognosis scores based on gene expression data
topic PREDICT
Breast cancer
Prognosis
Genomic score
Chemotherapy
Calibration
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-023-01612-9
work_keys_str_mv AT avirupchowdhury evaluationandcomparisonofdifferentbreastcancerprognosisscoresbasedongeneexpressiondata
AT pauldpharoah evaluationandcomparisonofdifferentbreastcancerprognosisscoresbasedongeneexpressiondata
AT oscarmrueda evaluationandcomparisonofdifferentbreastcancerprognosisscoresbasedongeneexpressiondata