4.7 Article

Copy number heterogeneity identifies ER plus breast cancer patients that do not benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 127, Issue 7, Pages 1332-1339

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01906-3

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Amsterdam UMC
  2. Oncode
  3. AG&M institute of Amsterdam UMC
  4. KWF [12215]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that low-risk breast cancer patients identified using chromosomal copy-number ITH do not benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy.
Background Endocrine therapy forms the backbone of adjuvant treatment for oestrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. However, it remains unclear whether adjuvant treatment improves survival rates in low-risk patients. Low intra-tumour heterogeneity (ITH) has been shown to confer low risk for recurrent disease. Here, it is studied if chromosomal copy-number ITH (CNH) can identify low-risk ER+, lymph-node-negative breast cancer patients who do not benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. Methods Lymph-node-negative ER+ patients from the observational METABRIC dataset were retrospectively analysed (n = 708). CNH was determined from a single bulk copy-number measurement for each patient. Survival rates were compared between patients that did or did not receive adjuvant endocrine therapy for CNH-low, middle and high groups with Cox proportional-hazards models, using propensity-score weights to correct for confounders. Results Adjuvant endocrine therapy improved the relapse-free survival (RFS) for CNH-high patients treatment (HR = 0.55), but not for CNH-low patients treatment (HR = 0.88). For CNH-low patients adjuvant endocrine therapy was associated with impaired OS (HR = 1.62). Conclusions This retrospective study of lymph-node-negative, ER+ breast cancer finds that patients identified as low risk using CNH do not benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available