Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-05-2016 | Preclinical study

Nottingham prognostic index plus (NPI+) predicts risk of distant metastases in primary breast cancer

Authors: Andrew R. Green, D. Soria, D. G. Powe, C. C. Nolan, M. Aleskandarany, M. A. Szász, A. M. Tőkés, G. R. Ball, J. M. Garibaldi, E. A. Rakha, J. Kulka, I. O. Ellis

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

The Nottingham prognostic index plus (NPI+) is based on the assessment of biological class combined with established clinicopathologic prognostic variables providing improved patient outcome stratification for breast cancer superior to the traditional NPI. This study aimed to determine prognostic capability of the NPI+ in predicting risk of development of distant disease. A well-characterised series of 1073 primary early-stage BC cases treated in Nottingham and 251 cases from Budapest were immunohistochemically assessed for cytokeratin (Ck)5/6, Ck18, EGFR, oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, HER2, HER3, HER4, Mucin 1 and p53 expression. NPI+ biological class and prognostic scores were assigned using individual algorithms for each biological class incorporating clinicopathologic parameters and investigated in terms of prediction of distant metastases-free survival (MFS). The NPI+ identified distinct prognostic groups (PG) within each molecular class which were predictive of MFS providing improved patient outcome stratification superior to the traditional NPI. NPI+ PGs, between series, were comparable in predicting patient outcome between series in luminal A, basal p53 altered and HER2+/ER+ (p > 0.01) tumours. The low-risk groups were similarly validated in luminal B, luminal N, basal p53 normal tumours (p > 0.01). Due to small patient numbers the remaining PGs could not be validated. NPI+ was additionally able to predict a higher risk of metastases at certain distant sites. This study may indicate the NPI+ as a useful tool in predicting the risk of metastases. The NPI+ provides accurate risk stratification allowing improved individualised clinical decision making for breast cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Weigelt B, Reis-Filho JS, Swanton C (2012) Genomic analyses to select patients for adjuvant chemotherapy: trials and tribulations. Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 10):x211–x218. doi:10.1093/annonc/mds323 CrossRefPubMed

Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO (1992) The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 22(3):207–219CrossRefPubMed

Balslev I, Axelsson CK, Zedeler K, Rasmussen BB, Carstensen B, Mouridsen HT (1994) The Nottingham prognostic index applied to 9149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Breast Cancer Res Treat 32(3):281–290CrossRefPubMed

D’Eredita G, Giardina C, Martellotta M, Natale T, Ferrarese F (2001) Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham prognostic index in patients with a long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution. Eur J Cancer 37(5):591–596CrossRefPubMed

Haybittle JL, Blamey RW, Elston CW, Johnson J, Doyle PJ, Campbell FC et al (1982) A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 45(3):361–366CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brown J, Jones M, Benson EA (1993) Comment on the Nottingham prognostic index. Breast Cancer Res Treat 25(3):283CrossRefPubMed

Blamey RW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE, Lee AH, Macmillan RD, Morgan DA et al (2007) Survival of invasive breast cancer according to the Nottingham prognostic index in cases diagnosed in 1990–1999. Eur J Cancer 43(10):1548–1555CrossRefPubMed

Rakha EA, Soria D, Green AR, Lemetre C, Powe DG, Nolan CC et al (2014) Nottingham prognostic index plus (NPI+): a modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 110(7):1688–1697. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.120 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, Rakha E, Paish C, Robertson JF et al (2005) High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer 116(3):340–350. doi:10.1002/ijc.21004 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Soria D, Garibaldi JM, Ambrogi F, Green AR, Powe D, Rakha E et al (2010) A methodology to identify consensus classes from clustering algorithms applied to immunohistochemical data from breast cancer patients. Comput Biol Med 40(3):318–330. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2010.01.003 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Green AR, Powe DG, Rakha EA, Soria D, Lemetre C, Nolan CC et al (2013) Identification of key clinical phenotypes of breast cancer using a reduced panel of protein biomarkers. Br J Cancer 109(7):1886–1894. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.528 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Soria D, Garibaldi JM, Green AR, Powe DG, Nolan CC, Lemetre C et al (2013) A quantifier-based fuzzy classification system for breast cancer patients. Artif Intell Med 58(3):175–184. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2013.04.006 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Green AR, Soria D, Stephen J, Powe DG, Nolan CC, Kunkler I et al (2016) Nottingham prognostic index plus: validation of a clinical decision making tool in breast cancer in an independent series. J Pathol: Clin Res 2(1):32–40

14.

Kulka J, Szasz AM, Nemeth Z, Madaras L, Schaff Z, Molnar IA et al (2009) Expression of tight junction protein claudin-4 in basal-like breast carcinomas. Pathol Oncol Res 15(1):59–64. doi:10.1007/s12253-008-9089-x CrossRefPubMed

15.

McCarty KS Jr, Miller LS, Cox EB, Konrath J, McCarty KS Sr (1985) Estrogen receptor analyses. Correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 109(8):716–721PubMed

16.

Goulding H, Pinder S, Cannon P et al (1995) A new method for the assessment of oestrogen receptor status on routine formalin-fixed tissue samples. Hum Pathol 26:291–294CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ et al (2007) 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 25(1):118–145CrossRefPubMed

18.

Garcia-Caballero T, Grabau D, Green AR, Gregory J, Schad A, Kohlwes E et al (2010) Determination of HER2 amplification in primary breast cancer using dual-colour chromogenic in situ hybridization is comparable to fluorescence in situ hybridization: a European multicentre study involving 168 specimens. Histopathology 56(4):472–480. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03503.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM (2005) Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 97(16):1180–1184. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji237 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Friendly M (2000) Visualizing categorical data. SAS Institute, Cary

21.

Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(27):2817–2826. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa041588 CrossRefPubMed

22.

van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(25):1999–2009. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa021967 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Cheang MC, Voduc D, Speers CH et al (2010) Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 28(20):3271–3277. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9820 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ambrogi F, Biganzoli E, Querzoli P, Ferretti S, Boracchi P, Alberti S et al (2006) Molecular subtyping of breast cancer from traditional tumor marker profiles using parallel clustering methods. Clin Cancer Res 12(3 Pt 1):781–790CrossRefPubMed

25.

Callagy G, Cattaneo E, Daigo Y, Happerfield L, Bobrow LG, Pharoah PD et al (2003) Molecular classification of breast carcinomas using tissue microarrays. Diagn Mol Pathol 12(1):27–34CrossRefPubMed

26.

Perou CM, Jeffrey SS, van de Rijn M, Rees CA, Eisen MB, Ross DT et al (1999) Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(16):9212–9217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

van ‘t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He HD, Hart AA, Bernards R et al (2003) Expression profiling predicts outcome in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 5(1):57–58CrossRefPubMed

29.

Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, Voduc D, Ebbert M, Vickery T et al (2010) A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16(21):5222–5232. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1282 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T et al (2009) Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 27(8):1160–1167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Darb-Esfahani S, Loibl S, Muller BM, Roller M, Denkert C, Komor M et al (2009) Identification of biology-based breast cancer types with distinct predictive and prognostic features: role of steroid hormone and HER2 receptor expression in patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res 11(5):R69CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Nottingham prognostic index plus (NPI+) predicts risk of distant metastases in primary breast cancer
Authors: Andrew R. Green
D. Soria
D. G. Powe
C. C. Nolan
M. Aleskandarany
M. A. Szász
A. M. Tőkés
G. R. Ball
J. M. Garibaldi
E. A. Rakha
J. Kulka
I. O. Ellis
Publication date: 01-05-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3804-1

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Protective effect of naturally occurring anti-HER2 autoantibodies on breast cancer

Association of adiposity, dysmetabolisms, and inflammation with aggressive breast cancer subtypes: a cross-sectional study

Delay in initiation of adjuvant trastuzumab therapy leads to decreased overall survival and relapse-free survival in patients with HER2-positive non-metastatic breast cancer

Effect of polyphenols on glucose and lactate transport by breast cancer cells

Psychosocial factors related to non-persistence with adjuvant endocrine therapy among women with breast cancer: the Breast Cancer Quality of Care Study (BQUAL)

Withaferin A inhibits in vivo growth of breast cancer cells accelerated by Notch2 knockdown

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer