Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38384489›Full record

ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Use of the Gene Expression Test Prosigna

Cordula Ziegler, Karl Sotlar, Daniel Maria Hofmann, Thomas Kolben, Nadia Harbeck, Rachel Wuerstlein

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cordula ZieglerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, BreastCenter and CCC Munich LMU, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Karl SotlarInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Daniel Maria HofmannInstitute of Pathology, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas KolbenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, BreastCenter and CCC Munich LMU, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Nadia HarbeckDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, BreastCenter and CCC Munich LMU, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Rachel WuerstleinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, BreastCenter and CCC Munich LMU, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEParacelsus Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: 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. Materials and Methods: Premenopausal patients with HR+ HER2-, pN0-1, G1-2 EBC were retrospectively enrolled ( Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Indexed as

Gene expression testKi-67Premenopausal breast cancerProsignaRisk-assessment

Identifiers

PMID38384489
PMCPMC10878706
OpenAlexW4387699058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.