ArticlePloS one2017
MammaPrint versus EndoPredict: Poor correlation in disease recurrence risk classification of hormone receptor positive breast cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- A triple hormone receptor ER, AR, and VDR signature is a robust prognosis predictor in breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Article
- Concordance between Ki-67 index in invasive breast cancer and molecular signatures: EndoPredict and MammaPrint.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- ZNF92, an unexplored transcription factor with remarkably distinct breast cancer over-expression associated with prognosis and cell-of-origin.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparison of breast cancer prognostic tests CanAssist Breast and Oncotype DX.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Network and Systems Medicine: Position Paper of the European Collaboration on Science and Technology Action on Open Multiscale Systems Medicine.Network and systems medicine · 2020Review
- Oncotype DX Breast Cancer recurrence score resists inter-assay reproducibility with RTScientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.