Abstract

•Forty-five percent of patients assigned to CT by routine classification were de-escalated to no CT by the Prosigna test.•The Prosigna test identified lower-risk patients with molecular higher risk who were offered escalated systemic treatment.•Incorporating the Prosigna test in the diagnostic work-up significantly reduced the treatment discrepancies between hospitals.•The correlations between Ki67 and ROR score among patients within different treatment/risk groups were poor. BackgroundEMIT-1 is a national, observational, single-arm trial designed to assess the value of the Prosigna, Prediction Analysis of Microarray using the 50 gene classifier (PAM50)/Risk of Recurrence (ROR), test as a routine diagnostic tool, examining its impact on adjuvant treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, side-effects and cost-effectiveness. Here we present the impact on treatment decisions.Patients and methodsPatients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative pT1-pT2 lymph node-negative early breast cancer (EBC) were included. The Prosigna test and standard histopathology assessments were carried out. Clinicians' treatment decisions were recorded before (pre-Prosigna) and after (post-Prosigna) the Prosigna test results were disclosed.ResultsOf 2217 patients included, 2178 had conclusive Prosigna results. The pre-Prosigna treatment decisions were: no systemic treatment (NT) in 27% of patients, endocrine treatment alone (ET) in 38% and chemotherapy (CT) followed by ET (CT + ET) in 35%. Post-Prosigna treatment decisions were 25% NT, 51% ET and 24% CT + ET, respectively. Adjuvant treatment changed in 28% of patients, including 21% change in CT use. Among patients assigned to CT + ET pre-Prosigna, 45% were de-escalated to ET post-Prosigna. Of patients assigned to ET, 12% were escalated to CT + ET and 8% were de-escalated to NT; of those assigned to NT, 18% were escalated to ET/CT + ET. CT was more frequently recommended for patients aged ≤50 years. In the subgroup with pT1c-pT2 G2 and intermediate Ki67 (0.5-1.5× local laboratory median Ki67 score), the pre-Prosigna CT treatment decision varied widely across hospitals (3%-51%). Post-Prosigna, the variability of CT use was markedly reduced (8%-24%). The correlation between Ki67 and ROR score within this subgroup was poor (r = 0.25-0.39). The median ROR score increased by increasing histological grade, but the ROR score ranges were wide (for G1 0-79, G2 0-90, G3 16-94).ConclusionThe Prosigna test result changed adjuvant treatment decisions in all EBC clinical risk groups, markedly decreased the CT use for patients categorized as higher clinical risk pre-Prosigna and reduced treatment decision discrepancies between hospitals. EMIT-1 is a national, observational, single-arm trial designed to assess the value of the Prosigna, Prediction Analysis of Microarray using the 50 gene classifier (PAM50)/Risk of Recurrence (ROR), test as a routine diagnostic tool, examining its impact on adjuvant treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, side-effects and cost-effectiveness. Here we present the impact on treatment decisions. Patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative pT1-pT2 lymph node-negative early breast cancer (EBC) were included. The Prosigna test and standard histopathology assessments were carried out. Clinicians' treatment decisions were recorded before (pre-Prosigna) and after (post-Prosigna) the Prosigna test results were disclosed. Of 2217 patients included, 2178 had conclusive Prosigna results. The pre-Prosigna treatment decisions were: no systemic treatment (NT) in 27% of patients, endocrine treatment alone (ET) in 38% and chemotherapy (CT) followed by ET (CT + ET) in 35%. Post-Prosigna treatment decisions were 25% NT, 51% ET and 24% CT + ET, respectively. Adjuvant treatment changed in 28% of patients, including 21% change in CT use. Among patients assigned to CT + ET pre-Prosigna, 45% were de-escalated to ET post-Prosigna. Of patients assigned to ET, 12% were escalated to CT + ET and 8% were de-escalated to NT; of those assigned to NT, 18% were escalated to ET/CT + ET. CT was more frequently recommended for patients aged ≤50 years. In the subgroup with pT1c-pT2 G2 and intermediate Ki67 (0.5-1.5× local laboratory median Ki67 score), the pre-Prosigna CT treatment decision varied widely across hospitals (3%-51%). Post-Prosigna, the variability of CT use was markedly reduced (8%-24%). The correlation between Ki67 and ROR score within this subgroup was poor (r = 0.25-0.39). The median ROR score increased by increasing histological grade, but the ROR score ranges were wide (for G1 0-79, G2 0-90, G3 16-94). The Prosigna test result changed adjuvant treatment decisions in all EBC clinical risk groups, markedly decreased the CT use for patients categorized as higher clinical risk pre-Prosigna and reduced treatment decision discrepancies between hospitals.