Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25099655›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2014

Chemosensitivity predicted by BluePrint 80-gene functional subtype and MammaPrint in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST).

Pat Whitworth, Lisette Stork-Sloots, Femke A de Snoo, Paul Richards, Michael Rotkis, Jennifer Beatty, Angela Mislowsky, James V Pellicane, Bichlien Nguyen, Laura Lee and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Pat WhitworthDepartment of Surgery, Nashville Breast Center, Nashville, TN, USA, patwhitworth@gmail.com.
Lisette Stork-Sloots
Femke A de Snoo
Paul Richards
Michael Rotkis
Jennifer Beatty
Angela Mislowsky
James V Pellicane
Bichlien Nguyen
Laura Lee
Charles Nash
Mark Gittleman
Stephanie Akbari
Peter D Beitsch
Agendia (Netherlands) · NLAdvanced Breast Care · USCharleston Breast Center · USComprehensive Blood & Cancer Center · USDallas Surgical Group · USLong Beach Memorial Medical Center · USMountain Blue Cancer Care Center · USNortheast Georgia Medical Center · USNorthern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium · USVirginia Cancer Institute · USVirginia Hospital Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response.

methodsThe study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal.

resultsA total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2- patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients.

conclusionsBluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID25099655
PMCPMC4161926
OpenAlexW2149900235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.