Search

Multigene assays for molecular subtypes and biomarkers can aid management of early invasive breast cancer. Using RNA-sequencing we aimed to develop single-sample predictor (SSP) models for clinical markers, subtypes, and risk of recurrence (ROR). A cohort of 7743 patients was divided into training and test set. We trained SSPs for subtypes and ROR assigned by nearest-centroid (NC) methods and SSPs for biomarkers from histopathology. Classifications were compared with Prosigna in two external cohorts (ABiM, n = 100 and OSLO2-EMIT0, n = 103). Prognostic value was assessed using distant recurrence-free interval. Agreement between SSP and NC for PAM50 {five subtypes) was high (85%, Kappa = 0.78) for Subtype (four subtypes) very high {90%, Kappa = 0.84) and for ROR risk category high (84%, Kappa = 0.75, weighted Kappa = 0.90). Prognostic value was assessed as equivalent and clinically relevant. Agreement with histopathology was very high or high for receptor status, while moderate for Ki67 status and poor for Nottingham histological grade. SSP and Prosigna concordance was high for subtype (OSLO-EMIT0 83%, Kappa = 0.73 and ABiM 80%, Kappa = 0.72) and moderate and high for ROR risk category (68 and 84%, Kappa = 0.50 and 0.70, weighted Kappa = 0.70 and 0.78). Pooled concordance for emulated treatment recommendation dichotomized for chemotherapy was high (85%, Kappa = 0.66). Retrospective evaluation suggested that SSP application could change chemotherapy recommendations for up to 17% of postmenopausal ER+/HER2-/N0 patients with balanced escalation and de-escalation. Results suggest that NC and SSP models are interchangeable on a group-level and nearly so on a patient level and that SSP models can be derived to closely match clinical tests.

Multigene assays for molecular subtypes and biomarkers can aid management of early invasive breast cancer. Using RNA-sequencing we aimed to develop single-sample predictor (SSP) models for clinical markers, subtypes, and risk of recurrence (ROR). A cohort of 7743 patients was divided into training and test set. We trained SSPs for subtypes and ROR assigned by nearest-centroid (NC) methods and SSPs for biomarkers from histopathology. Classifications were compared with Prosigna in two external cohorts (ABiM, n = 100 and OSLO2-EMIT0, n = 103). Prognostic value was assessed using distant recurrence-free interval. Agreement between SSP and NC for PAM50 {five subtypes) was high (85%, Kappa = 0.78) for Subtype (four subtypes) very high {90%, Kappa = 0.84) and for ROR risk category high (84%, Kappa = 0.75, weighted Kappa = 0.90). Prognostic value was assessed as equivalent and clinically relevant. Agreement with histopathology was very high or high for receptor status, while moderate for Ki67 status and poor for Nottingham histological grade. SSP and Prosigna concordance was high for subtype (OSLO-EMIT0 83%, Kappa = 0.73 and ABiM 80%, Kappa = 0.72) and moderate and high for ROR risk category (68 and 84%, Kappa = 0.50 and 0.70, weighted Kappa = 0.70 and 0.78). Pooled concordance for emulated treatment recommendation dichotomized for chemotherapy was high (85%, Kappa = 0.66). Retrospective evaluation suggested that SSP application could change chemotherapy recommendations for up to 17% of postmenopausal ER+/HER2-/N0 patients with balanced escalation and de-escalation. Results suggest that NC and SSP models are interchangeable on a group-level and nearly so on a patient level and that SSP models can be derived to closely match clinical tests.

Multigene assays for molecular subtypes and biomarkers can aid management of early invasive breast cancer. Using RNA-sequencing we aimed to develop single-sample predictor (SSP) models for clinical markers, subtypes, and risk of recurrence (ROR). A cohort of 7743 patients was divided into training and test set. We trained SSPs for subtypes and ROR assigned by nearest-centroid (NC) methods and SSPs for biomarkers from histopathology. Classifications were compared with Prosigna in two external cohorts (ABiM, n = 100 and OSLO2-EMIT0, n = 103). Prognostic value was assessed using distant recurrence-free interval. Agreement between SSP and NC for PAM50 {five subtypes) was high (85%, Kappa = 0.78) for Subtype (four subtypes) very high {90%, Kappa = 0.84) and for ROR risk category high (84%, Kappa = 0.75, weighted Kappa = 0.90). Prognostic value was assessed as equivalent and clinically relevant. Agreement with histopathology was very high or high for receptor status, while moderate for Ki67 status and poor for Nottingham histological grade. SSP and Prosigna concordance was high for subtype (OSLO-EMIT0 83%, Kappa = 0.73 and ABiM 80%, Kappa = 0.72) and moderate and high for ROR risk category (68 and 84%, Kappa = 0.50 and 0.70, weighted Kappa = 0.70 and 0.78). Pooled concordance for emulated treatment recommendation dichotomized for chemotherapy was high (85%, Kappa = 0.66). Retrospective evaluation suggested that SSP application could change chemotherapy recommendations for up to 17% of postmenopausal ER+/HER2-/N0 patients with balanced escalation and de-escalation. Results suggest that NC and SSP models are interchangeable on a group-level and nearly so on a patient level and that SSP models can be derived to closely match clinical tests.

Multigene assays for molecular subtypes and biomarkers can aid management of early invasive breast cancer. Using RNA-sequencing we aimed to develop single-sample predictor (SSP) models for clinical markers, subtypes, and risk of recurrence (ROR). A cohort of 7743 patients was divided into training and test set. We trained SSPs for subtypes and ROR assigned by nearest-centroid (NC) methods and SSPs for biomarkers from histopathology. Classifications were compared with Prosigna in two external cohorts (ABiM, n = 100 and OSLO2-EMIT0, n = 103). Prognostic value was assessed using distant recurrence-free interval. Agreement between SSP and NC for PAM50 {five subtypes) was high (85%, Kappa = 0.78) for Subtype (four subtypes) very high {90%, Kappa = 0.84) and for ROR risk category high (84%, Kappa = 0.75, weighted Kappa = 0.90). Prognostic value was assessed as equivalent and clinically relevant. Agreement with histopathology was very high or high for receptor status, while moderate for Ki67 status and poor for Nottingham histological grade. SSP and Prosigna concordance was high for subtype (OSLO-EMIT0 83%, Kappa = 0.73 and ABiM 80%, Kappa = 0.72) and moderate and high for ROR risk category (68 and 84%, Kappa = 0.50 and 0.70, weighted Kappa = 0.70 and 0.78). Pooled concordance for emulated treatment recommendation dichotomized for chemotherapy was high (85%, Kappa = 0.66). Retrospective evaluation suggested that SSP application could change chemotherapy recommendations for up to 17% of postmenopausal ER+/HER2-/N0 patients with balanced escalation and de-escalation. Results suggest that NC and SSP models are interchangeable on a group-level and nearly so on a patient level and that SSP models can be derived to closely match clinical tests.

Multigene assays for molecular subtypes and biomarkers can aid management of early invasive breast cancer. Using RNA-sequencing we aimed to develop single-sample predictor (SSP) models for clinical markers, subtypes, and risk of recurrence (ROR). A cohort of 7743 patients was divided into training and test set. We trained SSPs for subtypes and ROR assigned by nearest-centroid (NC) methods and SSPs for biomarkers from histopathology. Classifications were compared with Prosigna in two external cohorts (ABiM, n = 100 and OSLO2-EMIT0, n = 103). Prognostic value was assessed using distant recurrence-free interval. Agreement between SSP and NC for PAM50 {five subtypes) was high (85%, Kappa = 0.78) for Subtype (four subtypes) very high {90%, Kappa = 0.84) and for ROR risk category high (84%, Kappa = 0.75, weighted Kappa = 0.90). Prognostic value was assessed as equivalent and clinically relevant. Agreement with histopathology was very high or high for receptor status, while moderate for Ki67 status and poor for Nottingham histological grade. SSP and Prosigna concordance was high for subtype (OSLO-EMIT0 83%, Kappa = 0.73 and ABiM 80%, Kappa = 0.72) and moderate and high for ROR risk category (68 and 84%, Kappa = 0.50 and 0.70, weighted Kappa = 0.70 and 0.78). Pooled concordance for emulated treatment recommendation dichotomized for chemotherapy was high (85%, Kappa = 0.66). Retrospective evaluation suggested that SSP application could change chemotherapy recommendations for up to 17% of postmenopausal ER+/HER2-/N0 patients with balanced escalation and de-escalation. Results suggest that NC and SSP models are interchangeable on a group-level and nearly so on a patient level and that SSP models can be derived to closely match clinical tests.

Purpose: Oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers are classified as Luminal A or B based on gene expression, but immunohistochemical markers are used for surrogate subtyping. The aims of this study were to examine the agreement between molecular subtyping (MS) and surrogate subtyping and to identify subgroups consisting mainly of Luminal A or B tumours. Methods: The cohort consisted of 2063 patients diagnosed between 2013-2017, with primary ER+/HER2- breast cancer, analysed by RNA sequencing. Surrogate subtyping was performed according to three algorithms (St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and our proposed Grade-based classification). Agreement (%) and kappa statistics (kappa) were used as concordance measures and ROC analysis for luminal distinction. Ki67, progesterone receptor (PR) and histological grade (HG) were further investigated as surrogate markers. Results: The agreement rates between the MS and St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and Grade-based classifications were 62% (kappa = 0.30), 66% (kappa = 0.35) and 70% (kappa = 0.41), respectively. PR did not contribute to distinguishing Luminal A from B tumours (auROC = 0.56). By classifying HG1-2 tumours as Luminal A-like and HG3 as Luminal B-like, agreement with MS was 80% (kappa = 0.46). Moreover, by combining HG and Ki67 status, a large subgroup of patients (51% of the cohort) having > 90% Luminal A tumours could be identified. Conclusions: Agreement between MS and surrogate classifications was generally poor. However, a post hoc analysis showed that a combination of HG and Ki67 could identify patients very likely to have Luminal A tumours according to MS.

Multigene expression signatures provide a molecular subdivision of early breast cancer associated with patient outcome. A gap remains in the validation of such signatures in clinical treatment groups of patients within population-based cohorts of unselected primary breast cancer representing contemporary disease stages and current treatments. A cohort of 3520 resectable breast cancers with RNA sequencing data included in the population-based SCAN-B initiative (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02306096) were selected from a healthcare background population of 8587 patients diagnosed within the years 2010-2015. RNA profiles were classified according to 19 reported gene signatures including both gene expression subtypes (e.g. PAM50, IC10, CIT) and risk predictors (e.g. Oncotype DX, 70-gene, ROR). Classifications were analyzed in nine adjuvant clinical assessment groups: TNBC-ACT (adjuvant chemotherapy, n = 239), TNBC-untreated (n = 82), HER2+/ER- with anti-HER2+ACT treatment (n = 110), HER2+/ER+ with anti-HER2 + ACT + endocrine treatment (n = 239), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine treatment (n = 1113), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 243), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine treatment (n = 423), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 433), and ER+/HER2-/LN- untreated (n = 200). Gene signature classification (e.g., proportion low-, high-risk) was generally well aligned with stratification based on current immunohistochemistry-based clinical practice. Most signatures did not provide any further risk stratification in TNBC and HER2+/ER- disease. Risk classifier agreement (low-, medium/intermediate-, high-risk groups) in ER+ assessment groups was on average 50-60% with occasional pair-wise comparisons having <30% agreement. Disregarding the intermediate-risk groups, the exact agreement between low- and high-risk groups was on average similar to 80-95%, for risk prediction signatures across all assessment groups. Outcome analyses were restricted to assessment gro

Purpose: Oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers are classified as Luminal A or B based on gene expression, but immunohistochemical markers are used for surrogate subtyping. The aims of this study were to examine the agreement between molecular subtyping (MS) and surrogate subtyping and to identify subgroups consisting mainly of Luminal A or B tumours. Methods: The cohort consisted of 2063 patients diagnosed between 2013-2017, with primary ER+/HER2- breast cancer, analysed by RNA sequencing. Surrogate subtyping was performed according to three algorithms (St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and our proposed Grade-based classification). Agreement (%) and kappa statistics (kappa) were used as concordance measures and ROC analysis for luminal distinction. Ki67, progesterone receptor (PR) and histological grade (HG) were further investigated as surrogate markers. Results: The agreement rates between the MS and St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and Grade-based classifications were 62% (kappa = 0.30), 66% (kappa = 0.35) and 70% (kappa = 0.41), respectively. PR did not contribute to distinguishing Luminal A from B tumours (auROC = 0.56). By classifying HG1-2 tumours as Luminal A-like and HG3 as Luminal B-like, agreement with MS was 80% (kappa = 0.46). Moreover, by combining HG and Ki67 status, a large subgroup of patients (51% of the cohort) having > 90% Luminal A tumours could be identified. Conclusions: Agreement between MS and surrogate classifications was generally poor. However, a post hoc analysis showed that a combination of HG and Ki67 could identify patients very likely to have Luminal A tumours according to MS.

Purpose: Oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers are classified as Luminal A or B based on gene expression, but immunohistochemical markers are used for surrogate subtyping. The aims of this study were to examine the agreement between molecular subtyping (MS) and surrogate subtyping and to identify subgroups consisting mainly of Luminal A or B tumours. Methods: The cohort consisted of 2063 patients diagnosed between 2013-2017, with primary ER+/HER2- breast cancer, analysed by RNA sequencing. Surrogate subtyping was performed according to three algorithms (St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and our proposed Grade-based classification). Agreement (%) and kappa statistics (kappa) were used as concordance measures and ROC analysis for luminal distinction. Ki67, progesterone receptor (PR) and histological grade (HG) were further investigated as surrogate markers. Results: The agreement rates between the MS and St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and Grade-based classifications were 62% (kappa = 0.30), 66% (kappa = 0.35) and 70% (kappa = 0.41), respectively. PR did not contribute to distinguishing Luminal A from B tumours (auROC = 0.56). By classifying HG1-2 tumours as Luminal A-like and HG3 as Luminal B-like, agreement with MS was 80% (kappa = 0.46). Moreover, by combining HG and Ki67 status, a large subgroup of patients (51% of the cohort) having > 90% Luminal A tumours could be identified. Conclusions: Agreement between MS and surrogate classifications was generally poor. However, a post hoc analysis showed that a combination of HG and Ki67 could identify patients very likely to have Luminal A tumours according to MS.

Multigene expression signatures provide a molecular subdivision of early breast cancer associated with patient outcome. A gap remains in the validation of such signatures in clinical treatment groups of patients within population-based cohorts of unselected primary breast cancer representing contemporary disease stages and current treatments. A cohort of 3520 resectable breast cancers with RNA sequencing data included in the population-based SCAN-B initiative (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02306096) were selected from a healthcare background population of 8587 patients diagnosed within the years 2010-2015. RNA profiles were classified according to 19 reported gene signatures including both gene expression subtypes (e.g. PAM50, IC10, CIT) and risk predictors (e.g. Oncotype DX, 70-gene, ROR). Classifications were analyzed in nine adjuvant clinical assessment groups: TNBC-ACT (adjuvant chemotherapy, n = 239), TNBC-untreated (n = 82), HER2+/ER- with anti-HER2+ACT treatment (n = 110), HER2+/ER+ with anti-HER2 + ACT + endocrine treatment (n = 239), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine treatment (n = 1113), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 243), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine treatment (n = 423), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 433), and ER+/HER2-/LN- untreated (n = 200). Gene signature classification (e.g., proportion low-, high-risk) was generally well aligned with stratification based on current immunohistochemistry-based clinical practice. Most signatures did not provide any further risk stratification in TNBC and HER2+/ER- disease. Risk classifier agreement (low-, medium/intermediate-, high-risk groups) in ER+ assessment groups was on average 50-60% with occasional pair-wise comparisons having <30% agreement. Disregarding the intermediate-risk groups, the exact agreement between low- and high-risk groups was on average similar to 80-95%, for risk prediction signatures across all assessment groups. Outcome analyses were restricted to assessment gro

Multigene expression signatures provide a molecular subdivision of early breast cancer associated with patient outcome. A gap remains in the validation of such signatures in clinical treatment groups of patients within population-based cohorts of unselected primary breast cancer representing contemporary disease stages and current treatments. A cohort of 3520 resectable breast cancers with RNA sequencing data included in the population-based SCAN-B initiative (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02306096) were selected from a healthcare background population of 8587 patients diagnosed within the years 2010-2015. RNA profiles were classified according to 19 reported gene signatures including both gene expression subtypes (e.g. PAM50, IC10, CIT) and risk predictors (e.g. Oncotype DX, 70-gene, ROR). Classifications were analyzed in nine adjuvant clinical assessment groups: TNBC-ACT (adjuvant chemotherapy, n = 239), TNBC-untreated (n = 82), HER2+/ER- with anti-HER2+ACT treatment (n = 110), HER2+/ER+ with anti-HER2 + ACT + endocrine treatment (n = 239), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine treatment (n = 1113), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 243), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine treatment (n = 423), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 433), and ER+/HER2-/LN- untreated (n = 200). Gene signature classification (e.g., proportion low-, high-risk) was generally well aligned with stratification based on current immunohistochemistry-based clinical practice. Most signatures did not provide any further risk stratification in TNBC and HER2+/ER- disease. Risk classifier agreement (low-, medium/intermediate-, high-risk groups) in ER+ assessment groups was on average 50-60% with occasional pair-wise comparisons having <30% agreement. Disregarding the intermediate-risk groups, the exact agreement between low- and high-risk groups was on average similar to 80-95%, for risk prediction signatures across all assessment groups. Outcome analyses were restricted to assessment gro

Purpose: Oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers are classified as Luminal A or B based on gene expression, but immunohistochemical markers are used for surrogate subtyping. The aims of this study were to examine the agreement between molecular subtyping (MS) and surrogate subtyping and to identify subgroups consisting mainly of Luminal A or B tumours. Methods: The cohort consisted of 2063 patients diagnosed between 2013-2017, with primary ER+/HER2- breast cancer, analysed by RNA sequencing. Surrogate subtyping was performed according to three algorithms (St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and our proposed Grade-based classification). Agreement (%) and kappa statistics (kappa) were used as concordance measures and ROC analysis for luminal distinction. Ki67, progesterone receptor (PR) and histological grade (HG) were further investigated as surrogate markers. Results: The agreement rates between the MS and St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and Grade-based classifications were 62% (kappa = 0.30), 66% (kappa = 0.35) and 70% (kappa = 0.41), respectively. PR did not contribute to distinguishing Luminal A from B tumours (auROC = 0.56). By classifying HG1-2 tumours as Luminal A-like and HG3 as Luminal B-like, agreement with MS was 80% (kappa = 0.46). Moreover, by combining HG and Ki67 status, a large subgroup of patients (51% of the cohort) having > 90% Luminal A tumours could be identified. Conclusions: Agreement between MS and surrogate classifications was generally poor. However, a post hoc analysis showed that a combination of HG and Ki67 could identify patients very likely to have Luminal A tumours according to MS.

Purpose: Oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers are classified as Luminal A or B based on gene expression, but immunohistochemical markers are used for surrogate subtyping. The aims of this study were to examine the agreement between molecular subtyping (MS) and surrogate subtyping and to identify subgroups consisting mainly of Luminal A or B tumours. Methods: The cohort consisted of 2063 patients diagnosed between 2013-2017, with primary ER+/HER2- breast cancer, analysed by RNA sequencing. Surrogate subtyping was performed according to three algorithms (St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and our proposed Grade-based classification). Agreement (%) and kappa statistics (kappa) were used as concordance measures and ROC analysis for luminal distinction. Ki67, progesterone receptor (PR) and histological grade (HG) were further investigated as surrogate markers. Results: The agreement rates between the MS and St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and Grade-based classifications were 62% (kappa = 0.30), 66% (kappa = 0.35) and 70% (kappa = 0.41), respectively. PR did not contribute to distinguishing Luminal A from B tumours (auROC = 0.56). By classifying HG1-2 tumours as Luminal A-like and HG3 as Luminal B-like, agreement with MS was 80% (kappa = 0.46). Moreover, by combining HG and Ki67 status, a large subgroup of patients (51% of the cohort) having > 90% Luminal A tumours could be identified. Conclusions: Agreement between MS and surrogate classifications was generally poor. However, a post hoc analysis showed that a combination of HG and Ki67 could identify patients very likely to have Luminal A tumours according to MS.

Multigene expression signatures provide a molecular subdivision of early breast cancer associated with patient outcome. A gap remains in the validation of such signatures in clinical treatment groups of patients within population-based cohorts of unselected primary breast cancer representing contemporary disease stages and current treatments. A cohort of 3520 resectable breast cancers with RNA sequencing data included in the population-based SCAN-B initiative (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02306096) were selected from a healthcare background population of 8587 patients diagnosed within the years 2010-2015. RNA profiles were classified according to 19 reported gene signatures including both gene expression subtypes (e.g. PAM50, IC10, CIT) and risk predictors (e.g. Oncotype DX, 70-gene, ROR). Classifications were analyzed in nine adjuvant clinical assessment groups: TNBC-ACT (adjuvant chemotherapy, n = 239), TNBC-untreated (n = 82), HER2+/ER- with anti-HER2+ACT treatment (n = 110), HER2+/ER+ with anti-HER2 + ACT + endocrine treatment (n = 239), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine treatment (n = 1113), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 243), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine treatment (n = 423), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 433), and ER+/HER2-/LN- untreated (n = 200). Gene signature classification (e.g., proportion low-, high-risk) was generally well aligned with stratification based on current immunohistochemistry-based clinical practice. Most signatures did not provide any further risk stratification in TNBC and HER2+/ER- disease. Risk classifier agreement (low-, medium/intermediate-, high-risk groups) in ER+ assessment groups was on average 50-60% with occasional pair-wise comparisons having <30% agreement. Disregarding the intermediate-risk groups, the exact agreement between low- and high-risk groups was on average similar to 80-95%, for risk prediction signatures across all assessment groups. Outcome analyses were restricted to assessment gro

Multigene expression signatures provide a molecular subdivision of early breast cancer associated with patient outcome. A gap remains in the validation of such signatures in clinical treatment groups of patients within population-based cohorts of unselected primary breast cancer representing contemporary disease stages and current treatments. A cohort of 3520 resectable breast cancers with RNA sequencing data included in the population-based SCAN-B initiative (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02306096) were selected from a healthcare background population of 8587 patients diagnosed within the years 2010-2015. RNA profiles were classified according to 19 reported gene signatures including both gene expression subtypes (e.g. PAM50, IC10, CIT) and risk predictors (e.g. Oncotype DX, 70-gene, ROR). Classifications were analyzed in nine adjuvant clinical assessment groups: TNBC-ACT (adjuvant chemotherapy, n = 239), TNBC-untreated (n = 82), HER2+/ER- with anti-HER2+ACT treatment (n = 110), HER2+/ER+ with anti-HER2 + ACT + endocrine treatment (n = 239), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine treatment (n = 1113), ER+/HER2-/LN- with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 243), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine treatment (n = 423), ER+/HER2-/LN+ with endocrine +ACT treatment (n = 433), and ER+/HER2-/LN- untreated (n = 200). Gene signature classification (e.g., proportion low-, high-risk) was generally well aligned with stratification based on current immunohistochemistry-based clinical practice. Most signatures did not provide any further risk stratification in TNBC and HER2+/ER- disease. Risk classifier agreement (low-, medium/intermediate-, high-risk groups) in ER+ assessment groups was on average 50-60% with occasional pair-wise comparisons having <30% agreement. Disregarding the intermediate-risk groups, the exact agreement between low- and high-risk groups was on average similar to 80-95%, for risk prediction signatures across all assessment groups. Outcome analyses were restricted to assessment gro

Purpose: Oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers are classified as Luminal A or B based on gene expression, but immunohistochemical markers are used for surrogate subtyping. The aims of this study were to examine the agreement between molecular subtyping (MS) and surrogate subtyping and to identify subgroups consisting mainly of Luminal A or B tumours. Methods: The cohort consisted of 2063 patients diagnosed between 2013-2017, with primary ER+/HER2- breast cancer, analysed by RNA sequencing. Surrogate subtyping was performed according to three algorithms (St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and our proposed Grade-based classification). Agreement (%) and kappa statistics (kappa) were used as concordance measures and ROC analysis for luminal distinction. Ki67, progesterone receptor (PR) and histological grade (HG) were further investigated as surrogate markers. Results: The agreement rates between the MS and St. Gallen 2013, Maisonneuve and Grade-based classifications were 62% (kappa = 0.30), 66% (kappa = 0.35) and 70% (kappa = 0.41), respectively. PR did not contribute to distinguishing Luminal A from B tumours (auROC = 0.56). By classifying HG1-2 tumours as Luminal A-like and HG3 as Luminal B-like, agreement with MS was 80% (kappa = 0.46). Moreover, by combining HG and Ki67 status, a large subgroup of patients (51% of the cohort) having > 90% Luminal A tumours could be identified. Conclusions: Agreement between MS and surrogate classifications was generally poor. However, a post hoc analysis showed that a combination of HG and Ki67 could identify patients very likely to have Luminal A tumours according to MS.