Abstract
Purpose
The Oncotype DX© 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) estimates the risk of distant disease recurrence in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (ER+/HER2− ) breast cancer. Using RS to estimate risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR) is less conclusive. We aimed to perform network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluating the RS in estimating LRR in ER+/HER2− breast cancer.
Methods
A NMA was performed according to PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Analysis was performed using R packages and Shiny.
Results
16 studies with 21,037 patients were included (mean age: 55.1 years (range: 22–96)). The mean RS was 17.1 and mean follow-up was 66.4 months. Using traditional RS cut-offs, 49.7% of patients had RS < 18 (3944/7935), 33.8% had RS 18–30 (2680/7935), and 16.5% had RS > 30 (1311/7935). Patients with RS 18–30 (risk ratio (RR): 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32–2.37) and RS > 30 (RR: 3.45, 95% CI: 2.63–4.53) were significantly more likely to experience LRR than those with RS < 18. Using TAILORx cut-offs, 16.2% of patients had RS < 11 (1974/12,208), 65.8% had RS 11–25 (8036/12,208), and 18.0% with RS > 30 (2198/12,208). LRR rates were similar for patients with RS 11–25 (RR: 1.120, 95% CI: 0.520–2.410); however, those with RS > 25 had an increased risk of LRR (RR: 2.490, 95% CI: 0.680–9.390) compared to those with RS < 11. There was a stepwise increase in LRR rates when applying traditional and TAILORx cut-offs (both P < 0.050).
Conclusion
RS testing accurately estimates LRR risk for patients being treated for early-stage ER+/HER2− breast cancer. Future prospective, randomized studies may validate the predictive value of RS in estimating LRR.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy in women, with a lifetime risk of 12.4% in the western world [1]. While surgical resection through Halsted’s radical mastectomy was once considered the cornerstone of breast cancer management, novel therapeutic strategies and a more targeted approach to surgery have facilitated the improved oncological and survival outcomes, while minimizing treatment-related morbidity [2]. These timely changes to breast cancer care coincide with our heightened appreciation for the cellular, biomolecular, and genomic properties responsible for driving oncogenesis [3, 4]. Moreover, these advances have facilitated the development and incorporation of multigene expression assays into the clinical paradigm for breast cancer management to personalize treatment strategies [5,6,7].
Within the setting of early-stage estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (ER+/HER2− ) breast cancer, the Oncotype DX© Recurrence Score (RS) 21-gene expression assay (commercially available at Genomic Health Inc., Redwood City, California, United States) is used to predict distant disease recurrence following treatment with curative intent and to estimate prognosis [8, 9]. This assay uses reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction to determine expression levels of 16 cancer related and 5 control genes from the resected tumor specimen, which are then incorporated into an algorithm to provide the clinician with a RS and applied clinically to guide chemoendocrine prescription for early-stage ER+/HER2− disease [5]. The rapid translation of the 21-gene expression assay into the clinical management of breast cancer has successfully de-escalated the prescription of systemic chemotherapy in those with low-to-intermediate risk molecular profiles of experiencing recurrence [8, 10].
While the 21-gene expression assay is useful in gauging the potential benefit of prescribing cytotoxic chemotherapy in high-risk cases, its utility in estimating LRR risk is less apparent: Tumor blocks retrieved from the NSABP-B14 and B20 trials were evaluated with the sole purpose of establishing the risk of distant disease recurrence in a subset of ER+/HER2− lymph node-negative (LN-) breast cancer patients, before being combined to develop the RS signature [5]. The predictive value of using RS to estimate locoregional recurrence (LRR) in early-stage ER+/HER2− disease is uncertain. The prevention of LRR is crucial in breast cancer, as reducing LRR translates directly into reduced breast cancer-related death [11]. Despite this, estimating the risk of LRR in early-stage ER+/HER2− often proves challenging to the clinician. Accordingly, the aim of the current systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the clinical utility of the 21-gene expression assay in estimating LRR in early-stage ER+/HER2− breast cancer.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted in accordance to the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (or PRISMA) extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions [12]. Local institutional ethical approval was not sought as all data used in this analysis were obtained from a previously published resource.
Study eligibility
All published studies with full-text manuscripts comparing LRR rates per RS category following treatment with curative intent for early-stage ER+/HER2− breast cancers were included. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of a prospective and retrospective design were included. Included studies were expected to report on the primary outcome of interest. All studies failing to fulfill the pre-determined inclusion criteria were excluded. Conference abstracts, case reports, case series with less than 5 patients, editorial articles, opinion pieces, and review articles were excluded. Our rationale for omitting such articles was due to the paucity of crude data available in such forms for inclusion in meta-analysis. Studies not published in the English language were excluded. Included studies were not restricted by year of publication.
Population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO)
Using the PICO framework [13], the aspects the authors wished to address were as follows:
Population–Patients who had previously been diagnosed with an invasive ER+/HER2− breast cancer aged 18 years or older who had undergone RS testing on their resected specimen from time of diagnosis.
Intervention/Exposure–Any patient who subsequently developed LRR during follow-up (which includes those who have developed LRR with or without distant disease recurrence).
Comparison/Control–Any patient free of LRR during follow-up.
Outcomes–The primary outcome of interest was as follows:
The secondary outcomes of interest included:
-
Clinicopathological, surgical, and adjuvant treatment data for all patients.
Search strategy
A formal systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus electronic databases was performed for titles studies relevant to this research question. This search was performed by two independent reviewers (MGD & EFC), using a pre-determined search strategy that was designed by the senior author (MJK). This search included the search terms: [(21-gene assay) OR (oncotype)] AND (locoregional recurrence) linked using the Boolean operator ‘AND.’ Manual cross-referencing of reference lists from previous studies was undertaken.
Manual removal of duplicate studies was performed before all titles were screened. Thereafter, studies considered to be appropriate had their abstracts and/or full text reviewed. Retrieved studies were reviewed to ensure inclusion criteria were met for the primary outcome, with discordances in opinion arbitrated through consultation with a third author (JPOD). Data extraction was also performed by two independent reviewers (MGD & EFC), with study details, basic patient clinicopathological characteristics, RS data, LRR rates, surgical data, and adjuvant treatment strategies all recorded. The final search was performed on the 22nd October 2021.
Data management and analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to outline characteristics of included studies (Fisher’s Exact (†) and Chi-Squared (χ2) tests as appropriate). Rates of LRR for each RS group were expressed as dichotomous or binary outcomes, reported as odds ratios (ORs) and risk ratios (RRs) were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). ORs/RRs were calculated, using crude event study data, to compare interventions using per-protocol data, where applicable. The lowest RS cut-off category (traditional: RS < 18, TAILORx: RS < 11) were used as the principal comparator for all analyses.
Frequentist NMAs were conducted using netameta and Shiny packages for R [14]. LRR effect were described with a 95% CI. Results were considered statistically significant at the P < 0.050 level if the 95% CI did not include the value of one. Rank probabilities were plotted against the possible ranks for all competing treatments. As included studies were non-randomized, observational studies, methodological assessment was undertaken using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [15].
Results
Literature search and study characteristics
The systematic search strategy identified a total of 964 studies, of which 44 duplicate studies were manually removed. The remaining 920 titles were screened for relevance, before 89 abstracts were reviewed. In total, we evaluated 24 full-text manuscripts and 16 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review and NMA [8, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30] (Fig. 1). Of the 16 studies included in this analysis, 56.3% were conducted in research institutions in the United States of America (9/16). In total, 37.5% of the included studies were prospective in design (6/16) and publication dates ranged from 2010 to 2021 (Table 1).
Clinical characteristics
Overall, there were data included from 21,037 patients with mean age at diagnosis of 55.1 years (range: 22–96 years). The mean RS was 17.1 (range: 0–71) and the mean follow-up was 66.4 months (range: 27.0–120.0 months). In total, 2.8% of included patients experienced LRR (590/21,037).
Treatment characteristics
In total, 64.0% of patients underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (12,060/19,130–12 studies) and 33.1% underwent mastectomy (6277/18,943–11 studies). Of those reporting treatment with adjuvant radiotherapy (XRT), 99.2% of patients eligible for BCS received breast XRT (5297/5339–11 studies). Following RS testing, 43.5% of patients received combined chemoendocrine therapy (9142/21,037–16 studies). The majority of patients underwent endocrine therapies (90.5%, 19,028/21,037–16 studies).
Locoregional recurrence rates: Traditional cut-offs
When using traditional RS cut-offs, 49.7% of patients had tumors with RS < 18 (3944/7935), 33.8% had RS 18–30 (2680/7935), and 16.5% had RS > 30 (1311/7935). Alternatively, 52.0% of patients had RS > 18 (4269/8213) and 83.5% of patients had RS < 30 (6610/7921) (Table 2). LRR rates increased in a stepwise fashion in accordance with traditional RS categories: RS < 18: 2.2% vs. RS 18–30: 3.5% vs. RS > 30: 10.2% (P < 0.001, χ2). Additionally, LRR rates increased when comparing dichotomous RS cut-offs: RS < 18: 2.2% vs. RS > 18: 6.0% (P < 0.001, †) and RS < 30: 2.7% vs. RS > 30: 10.2% (P < 0.001, †) (Table 2).
In the NMA, patients with RS 18–30 (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.32–2.37) and RS > 30 (RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.63–4.53) were significantly more likely to experience LRR than those with RS < 18 (Fig. 2.A). Patients with RS < 18 were significantly less likely to experience LRR versus those with RS ≥ 18 (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31–0.50, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2.B). Patients with RS < 30 were significantly less likely to experience LRR versus those with RS ≥ 30 (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21–0.48, P < 0.001, I2 = 51%) (Fig. 2.C). Forest plots illustrating LRR risk based on nodal status using traditional RS cut-offs are illustrated in Supplementary Appendices 1.A–1.B.
Locoregional recurrence rates: TAILORx cut-offs
Using TAILORx cut-offs, 16.2% of patients had tumors with RS < 11 (1974/12,208), 65.8% had RS 11–25 (8036/12,208), and 18.0% with RS > 30 (2198/12,208). Alternatively, 83.1% of patients had tumors with RS > 11 (9719/11,693) and 84.3% had RS < 30 (11,837/14,035) (Table 2). Once again, LRR rates increased in a stepwise fashion in accordance with traditional RS categories: RS < 11: 1.2% vs. RS 11–25: 1.8%, vs. RS > 25: 2.9% (P < 0.001, χ2). LRR rates increased using dichotomous cut-offs: RS < 11: 1.2% vs. RS ≥ 11: 2.0% (P = 0.016, †) and RS < 25: 1.7% vs. RS ≥ 25: 2.9% (P < 0.001, †) (Table 2).
In the NMA, there were similar LRR rates for patients with RS 11–25 (RR 1.120, 95% CI 0.510–2.410) and RS > 25 (RR 2.410, 95% CI 1.090–5.310) compared to those with RS < 11 (Fig. 3.A). Patients with RS < 11 were significantly less likely to experience LRR than those with RS > 11 (RR 0.610, 95% CI 0.400–0.940, P = 0.020, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3.B). Patients with RS < 25 were significantly less likely to experience LRR versus those with RS > 25 (RR 0.610, 95% CI 0.460–0.810, P < 0.001, I2 = 32%) (Fig. 3.C). Forest plots illustrating LRR risk based on nodal status using TAILORx RS cut-offs are illustrated in Supplementary Appendices 1.A–1.B.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating patient risk of LRR following the substratification and treatment of early-stage ER+/HER2− breast cancer in accordance with the 21-gene RS expression assay. The results of this study illustrate a stepwise increase in LRR rates with increasing RS, regardless of the use of traditional or TAILORx cut-offs. The clinical application of RS testing has transformed the management paradigm of early-stage ER+/HER2− disease and has facilitated the personalization of combined chemoendocrine therapy for those at the greatest risk of distant disease recurrence [5], while minimizing probable overtreatment for those who will benefit little from such therapies [8, 9]. While the 21-gene assay expression assay testing has been focused on controlling distant disease recurrence, the results of this study illustrate a significant correlation between LRR rates and RS category. Therefore, the current study highlights the role for biomolecular and genomic tumor features in providing valuable information in relation to LRR risk in ER + disease. This data may be useful in facilitating the appropriate de-escalation and/or escalation of adjuvant treatment strategies being utilized to establish locoregional control of the breast and axilla.
In this systematic review, we observed LRR rates of 2.2%, 3.5%, and 10.2% when applying traditional cut-offs with respect to low-, intermediate-, and high risk for patients (P < 0.001, χ2). While these findings are similar to the LRR rates observed in the seminal NSABP-B14 and B-20 trials at 10-year follow-up (LRR rates of 4.3%, 7.2%, and 15.8%, respectively), this comparison is limited by the shorter duration of mean follow-up in the current analysis (5 and a half years vs. 10-year follow-up in NSABP-B14/B-20). Additionally, we acknowledge this is not a matched comparison due to our inclusion of LN + disease in the current study. Of note, the data outlined in the study by Mamousas et al. contribute a large proportion to the LRR rates observed in each of the RS groups delineated using traditional cut-offs, which is best explained through their inclusion of node-positive cancers only (based on the inclusion criteria of NSABP B28) [23]. In our NMA, the relative risk of LRR was 1.76 times more likely in patients with RS 18–30 and 3.45 times more likely in those with RS > 30, compared to those with RS < 18. The crude data in this study illustrate a significant difference in LRR rates when using RS 18 (RS < 18: 2.2% vs. RS ≥ 18: 6.0%, P < 0.001, †) and RS 30 (RS < 30: 2.7% vs. RS ≥ 30: 10.2%, P < 0.001, †) as cut-offs to delineate the risk of LRR and those with lower RS categories were significantly less likely to experience LRR at meta-analysis (RS < 18: RR 0.40, RS < 30: RR 0.32). These are interesting findings that the commercially available 21-gene expression assay has been only validated to quantify the risk of distant disease recurrence in those diagnosed with ER+/HER2− breast cancer, by successfully selecting those with tumors of more aggressive biology to receive combined chemoendocrine therapy. Based on the results of this analysis, the RS has potential clinical utility in estimating safe locoregional control and risk of LRR, hereby challenging recommendations made at the 17th St. Gallen expert consensus. The 2021 panel recommended that genomic testing should not be utilized in guiding adjuvant regional node irradiation (92% against) and post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) (89% against) in patients with ER + disease [31]. While traditional parameters such as clinicopathological and surgical data (i.e., tumor staging, and margin status) will remain important in guiding therapeutic decision-making in relation to XRT to aid locoregional control following tumor resection, the present study supports the rationale that patients with a RS < 18 have a very low incidence of LRR. This may have implications for therapeutic decision-making and the judicious use of RS to aid therapeutic adjuvant decision-making in relation to XRT in future clinical trials.
When applying the TAILORx cut-offs, this stepwise increase in LRR rates remained consistent [RS < 11: 1.2%, vs. RS 11–25: 1.8%, vs. RS > 25: 2.9% (P < 0.001, χ2)] and increased again when applying dichotomous cut-offs [RS < 11: 1.2% vs. RS ≥ 11: 2.0% (P = 0.016, †), RS < 25: 1.7% vs. RS ≥ 25: 2.9% (P < 0.001, †)]. In our NMA, the relative risk of LRR was similar for RS < 11 versus RS 11–25, however was 2.41 times more likely in those with RS > 30. Furthermore, those with lower RS were significantly less likely to experience LRR at meta-analysis (RS < 11: RR 0.61, RS < 25: RR 0.61). However, caution must be taken when interpreting these results. The inclusion of data from the prospective TAILORx trial represents a large proportion of the patients evaluated using TAILORx cut-offs (69.3%, 9719/14,035), which inevitably heavily influences LRR outcomes for this cohort [8]. While these data from Sparano et al. may be considered to ‘skew’ results and analyses, we must acknowledge the inherent value of this data; TAILORx was a prospective, multicenter trial of randomized design, indicating reliable evidence which accurately indicates the risks of LRR for these patients. Therefore, relying on this study to provide ‘real-world’ risk of LRR by RS category is justifiable, particularly when the capabilities of RS in predicting LRR in early-stage ER+/HER2− breast cancer is likely being underestimated (and subsequently underutilized) in establishing LRR in high-risk cases.
The current NMA outlines the risk of LRR based on results of the 21-gene expression assay in ER+/HER2− disease. As outlined by Goldhirsch et al. at the 2013 St. Gallen International Expert Consensus [32], genomic substratification classifies high-risk ER+/HER2− cases (such as those with RS > 30: RR 3.45 and RS > 25: 2.41) replicate the more aggressive luminal B molecular subtype. In their meta-analysis of over 12,000 patients, Lowery et al. outlined the importance of steroid hormone receptor and HER2 status in establishing the risk of LRR, with those with ER+/HER2− cancers being considered to have a lower relative risk of LRR compared to triple-negative (OR: 0.38) and HER2-positive (OR: 0.34) molecular phenotypes [33]. However, this analysis failed to establish the LRR rates for luminal A and B diseases independently. In their later systematic review, McGuire et al. established there is reduced risk of LRR among patient with luminal A disease compared to all other molecular subtypes [34]. Interestingly, McGuire et al. observed a LRR rate of 1.7% for patients with luminal A disease after 53-month follow-up, with LRR rates of 3.3% in those with luminal B disease (albeit limited in that they included HER2+cancers). These results are similar to the observed 2.8% of patients experiencing LRR (590/21,037) after 66.4-month follow-up in the current study, with LRR rates of 1.7% for RS < 25 and 2.9% for RS ≥ 25 (P < 0.001, †). While these previous studies evaluated LRR risk by receptor status, this NMA has the advantage of solely quantifying LRR risk using the 21-gene expression assay in ER+/HER2− disease, highlighting the value of genomic testing in estimating LRR rates in this subgroup of breast carcinoma.
The present study has several limitations. Firstly, and most importantly, the studies failed to provide data to allow accurate subgroup analysis in relation to LRR adjusted for age, menopause status, margin positivity levels, chemotherapy prescription, and most importantly, surgical management and XRT use. Therefore, conclusions drawn as to how to best apply RS testing to influence locoregional control of the breast and axilla may be perceived to be somewhat limited. Secondly, data from the prospective TAILORx trial represent a large proportion of the patients evaluated in this NMA using TAILORx cut-offs (69.3%), which heavily influences these outcomes in relation to LRR. Similarly, the patients included in this study by Sparano et al. represent 46.2% of the total patients included (9719/21,037). Thirdly, just 37.5% of the included studies were of a prospective design (6/16), indicating most studies were retrospective, observational studies which are inherently subjected to ascertainment, confounding, and selection biases. Finally, publication dates of included studies ranged from 2010 to 2021, during which period the seminal results of TAILORx and RxPONDER have transformed the management paradigm for patients diagnosed with early-stage ER+/HER2− breast cancers. Despite these limitations, the current study is the first systematic review to provide real-world data estimating the risk of LRR based on results of the results of genomic testing for early-stage breast carcinoma. Moreover, this analysis contributes to current efforts focused on expanding indications for the 21-gene expression assay in the modern breast cancer treatment paradigm [35,36,37,38].
In conclusion, RS testing accurately estimates the risk of LRR for patients being treated with curative intent for early-stage ER+/HER2− breast cancer. While RS testing is validated for quantifying the risk of distant disease recurrence, awareness for its ability to predict LRR is essential to establish effective locoregional control of the breast and axilla. Future prospective, randomized studies may further validate the predictive value of RS in estimating LRR and the application of RS to establish adequate locoregional control in high-risk cases.
Data availability
Study data will be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
References
DeSantis CE et al (2017) Breast cancer statistics, 2017, racial disparity in mortality by state. CA Cancer J Clin 67(6):439–448
Keelan S, Flanagan M, Hill ADK (2021) Evolving trends in surgical management of breast cancer: an analysis of 30 years of practice changing papers. Front Oncol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.622621
Perou CM et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752
Sørlie T et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874
Paik S et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(27):2817–2826
Davey MG et al (2021) MicroRNA expression profiles and breast cancer chemotherapy. Int J Mol Sci 22(19):10812
van t’ Veer LJ et al (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415(6871):530–6
Sparano JA et al (2018) Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 379(2):111–121
Kalinsky K, Barlow WE, Meric-Bernstam F, Gralow JR, Albain KS, Hayes D et al (2021) Abstract GS3-00: first results from a phase III randomized clinical trial of standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) +/- chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with 1-3 positive nodes, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) with recurrence score (RS) < 25: SWOG S1007 (RxPonder). Cancer Res 25:56–99. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS20-GS3-00
McVeigh TP et al (2014) The impact of Oncotype DX testing on breast cancer management and chemotherapy prescribing patterns in a tertiary referral centre. Eur J Cancer 50(16):2763–2770
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group et al (2011) (2011) Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 378(9804):1707–1716
Hutton B et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162(11):777–784
Armstrong EC (1999) The well-built clinical question: the key to finding the best evidence efficiently. WMJ 98(2):25–28
Owen RK et al (2019) MetaInsight: an interactive web-based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta-analyses using R-shiny and netmeta. Res Synth Methods 10(4):569–581
Wells GA, D O'Connell BS, Peterson P, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P et al (2021) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2021 [cited 2021 04/11/2021]. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
Abdelhakam DA, Hanna H, Nassar A (2021) Oncotype DX and Prosigna in breast cancer patients: a comparison study. Cancer Treat Res Commun 26:100306
Davey MG et al (2021) Clinicopathological correlates, oncological impact, and validation of Oncotype DX™ in a European tertiary referral centre. Breast J 27(6):521–528
Jaafar H et al (2014) Impact of Oncotype DX testing on adjuvant treatment decisions in patients with early breast cancer: a single-center study in the United Arab Emirates. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 10(4):354–360
Kim K et al (2020) Impact of oncotype DX recurrence score on the patterns of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer (Korean radiation oncology group 19–06). J Breast Cancer 23(3):314–319
Koh M et al (2021) Prognostic value of the 21-gene recurrence score for regional recurrence in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 188(3):583–592
Lu Y et al (2021) Diverse distribution and gene expression on the 21-gene recurrence assay in breast cancer patients with locoregional recurrence versus distant metastasis. Cancer Manag Res 13:6279–6289
Mamounas EP et al (2010) Association between the 21-gene recurrence score assay and risk of locoregional recurrence in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. J Clin Oncol 28(10):1677–1683
Mamounas EP et al (2017) 21-Gene recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in node-positive/er-positive breast cancer treated with chemo-endocrine therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(4):djw259
Schwartzberg BS et al (2018) Application of 21-gene recurrence score results and ASTRO suitability criteria in breast cancer patients treated with intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT). Am J Surg 216(4):689–693
Solin LJ et al (2012) Prognostic value of biologic subtype and the 21-gene recurrence score relative to local recurrence after breast conservation treatment with radiation for early stage breast carcinoma: results from the Eastern cooperative oncology group E2197 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134(2):683–692
Tevis SE et al (2019) OncotypeDX recurrence score does not predict nodal burden in clinically node negative breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 26(3):815–820
Turashvili G et al (2017) 21-Gene recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166(1):69–76
Woodward WA et al (2020) Association between 21-gene assay recurrence score and locoregional recurrence rates in patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA Oncol 6(4):505–511
Yang PS et al (2019) A preliminary report of head-to-head comparison of 18-gene-based clinical-genomic model and oncotype DX 21-gene assay for predicting recurrence of early-stage breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 49(11):1029–1036
Yang DD et al (2020) Association between the 21-gene recurrence score and isolated locoregional recurrence in stage I-II, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Radiat Oncol 15(1):198
Thomssen C et al (2021) St. Gallen/Vienna 2021: a brief summary of the consensus discussion on customizing therapies for women with early breast cancer. Breast Care 16(2):135–143
Goldhirsch A et al (2013) Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 24(9):2206–2223
Lowery AJ et al (2012) Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(3):831–841
McGuire A et al (2017) Locoregional recurrence following breast cancer surgery in the trastuzumab era: a systematic review by subtype. Ann Surg Oncol 24(11):3124–3132
Boland MR et al (2021) Value of a 21-gene expression assay on core biopsy to predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Surg 108(1):24–31
Davey MG et al (2021) Is radiomic MRI a feasible alternative to OncotypeDX® recurrence score testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open 5(5):zrab081
Davey MG et al (2021) OncotypeDX© recurrence score in BRCA mutation carriers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 154:209–216
Davey MG et al (2021) Clinical utility of the 21-gene assay in predicting response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 58:113–120
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. MGD received funding from the National Breast Cancer Research Institute, Ireland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MGD, AJL, and MJK: contributed to the study conception and design. Search strategy, data collection, material preparation, and data analysis were performed by MGD, EFC, JPOD, and SG. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MGD under the close supervision of AJL and MJK. All six authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All six authors read and approved the final manuscript. Final sign-off was provided from the senior author, MJK.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Davey, M.G., Cleere, E.F., O’Donnell, J.P. et al. Value of the 21-gene expression assay in predicting locoregional recurrence rates in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 193, 535–544 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06580-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06580-w