TY - JOUR
T1 - A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer
AU - van de Vijver, Marc J.
AU - He, Yudong D.
AU - van't Veer, Laura J.
AU - Dai, Hongyue
AU - Hart, Augustinus A. M.
AU - Voskuil, Dorien W.
AU - Schreiber, George J.
AU - Peterse, Johannes L.
AU - Roberts, Chris
AU - Marton, Matthew J.
AU - Parrish, Mark
AU - Atsma, Douwe
AU - Witteveen, Anke T.
AU - Glas, Annuska
AU - Delahaye, Leonie
AU - van der Velde, Tony
AU - Bartelink, Harry
AU - Rodenhuis, Sjoerd
AU - Rutgers, Emiel T.
AU - Friend, Stephen H.
AU - Bernards, René
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - BACKGROUND: A more accurate means of prognostication in breast cancer will improve the selection of patients for adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: Using microarray analysis to evaluate our previously established 70-gene prognosis profile, we classified a series of 295 consecutive patients with primary breast carcinomas as having a gene-expression signature associated with either a poor prognosis or a good prognosis. All patients had stage I or II breast cancer and were younger than 53 years old; 151 had lymph-node-negative disease, and 144 had lymph-node-positive disease. We evaluated the predictive power of the prognosis profile using univariable and multivariable statistical analyses. RESULTS: Among the 295 patients, 180 had a poor-prognosis signature and 115 had a good-prognosis signature, and the mean (+/-SE) overall 10-year survival rates were 54.6+/-4.4 percent and 94.5+/-2.6 percent, respectively. At 10 years, the probability of remaining free of distant metastases was 50.6+/-4.5 percent in the group with a poor-prognosis signature and 85.2+/-4.3 percent in the group with a good-prognosis signature. The estimated hazard ratio for distant metastases in the group with a poor-prognosis signature, as compared with the group with the good-prognosis signature, was 5.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.9 to 9.0; P <0.001). This ratio remained significant when the groups were analyzed according to lymph-node status. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the prognosis profile was a strong independent factor in predicting disease outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The gene-expression profile we studied is a more powerful predictor of the outcome of disease in young patients with breast cancer than standard systems based on clinical and histologic criteria
AB - BACKGROUND: A more accurate means of prognostication in breast cancer will improve the selection of patients for adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: Using microarray analysis to evaluate our previously established 70-gene prognosis profile, we classified a series of 295 consecutive patients with primary breast carcinomas as having a gene-expression signature associated with either a poor prognosis or a good prognosis. All patients had stage I or II breast cancer and were younger than 53 years old; 151 had lymph-node-negative disease, and 144 had lymph-node-positive disease. We evaluated the predictive power of the prognosis profile using univariable and multivariable statistical analyses. RESULTS: Among the 295 patients, 180 had a poor-prognosis signature and 115 had a good-prognosis signature, and the mean (+/-SE) overall 10-year survival rates were 54.6+/-4.4 percent and 94.5+/-2.6 percent, respectively. At 10 years, the probability of remaining free of distant metastases was 50.6+/-4.5 percent in the group with a poor-prognosis signature and 85.2+/-4.3 percent in the group with a good-prognosis signature. The estimated hazard ratio for distant metastases in the group with a poor-prognosis signature, as compared with the group with the good-prognosis signature, was 5.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.9 to 9.0; P <0.001). This ratio remained significant when the groups were analyzed according to lymph-node status. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the prognosis profile was a strong independent factor in predicting disease outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The gene-expression profile we studied is a more powerful predictor of the outcome of disease in young patients with breast cancer than standard systems based on clinical and histologic criteria
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021967
DO - https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021967
M3 - Article
C2 - 12490681
SN - 0028-4793
VL - 347
SP - 1999
EP - 2009
JO - New England journal of medicine
JF - New England journal of medicine
IS - 25
ER -