Prosigna Assay for Treatment Decisions in Early Breast Cancer: A Decision Impact Study

TL;DR

This study evaluates how the Prosigna assay affects treatment decisions for early breast cancer patients by comparing pre- and post-test physician choices.

Contribution

The study demonstrates the Prosigna assay's impact on clinical decision-making for breast cancer treatment.

Findings

40.4% discordance in recurrence risk between pre- and post-test assessments.

Prosigna reclassified luminal A tumors as luminal B, affecting treatment choices.

Only one patient's treatment choice changed after Prosigna results.

Abstract

Introduction: Therapeutic decisions in early breast cancer are based on clinico-pathological features which are subject to intra- and inter-observer variability. This single-center decision impact study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Prosigna assay on physicians’ adjuvant treatment choices. Methods: Between 09/2017 and 02/2018, formalin-fixed tumor samples from 52 newly diagnosed, postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (T1–T2; pN0-N1a) patients were analyzed. Pre-test clinical judgements and Prosigna test results were compared. Results: The mean age was 59 (42–77). Invasive ductal carcinoma (79.2%), grade 2 (52.8%) and T1c-N0 tumors (43.4%) were represented. There was 40.4% discordance between the pre- and post-test risk of recurrences. No significant change was observed in the clinical intermediate risk category, while there was a net reclassification of low-risk patients into a high Prosigna recurrence risk group. In addition, clinically determined intrinsic subtypes were 34.6% discordant with the Prosigna results, which is largely driven by the reclassification of the luminal A tumors into the Prosigna-assessed luminal B group. Before the Prosigna test, endocrine treatment was the primary choice in 20 patients (39.2%), and chemotherapy was recommended to 31 patients (60.8%). Overall, the Prosigna assay led to a change in treatment choice for one patient. Conclusions: Although conventional risk assessment methods are relatively inexpensive with shorter turnaround times, their accuracy and value for risk reduction are suboptimal. According to our results, the Prosigna assay was found to be a relevant tool for the clinical decision making process. Long-term follow-up of these patients will elucidate the potential benefits of using multigene molecular tests as biomarkers for treatment.

Figures