search button
Open Access

Examination of the Biomark assay as an alternative to Oncotype DX for defining chemotherapy benefit

  • Authors:
    • Jinkyoung Kim
    • Aeree Kim
    • Chungyeul Kim

  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: November 30, 2018     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.9784
  • Pages: 1812-1818

  • Copyright: © Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Currently the 21‑gene recurrence score (RS) assay called Oncotype DX is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for defining the benefit of chemotherapy. To overcome the cost disadvantages of the Oncotype DX assay and the turnaround time, a multigene assay was examined to compare the correlation of the RS and the predicted score (PS) of the present study. Paraffin‑embedded tissues of 50 cases with early‑stage estrogen receptor (ER)‑positive breast cancer, who underwent the Oncotype DX test were used. A total of 149 candidate genes with high correlation to the RS were identified, in another project (Lee et al, unpublished data). Reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction biomark assays were conducted using the dynamic array integrated fluidic circuit and the correlation analysis was performed with BRB ArrayTools. A predictive model was developed by the coefficient and gene expression, and 41 genes were identified. If the cut‑off was ≥18, the predicted model was 18/50 cases, and the RS was 19, indicating that the differential rate of predicted response against RS was 2%. If the cutoff was ≥11, the predicted model was 38/50 cases and the RS was 34, indicating a difference of 8%. Genes common to the Oncotype DX and the Biomark assay include marker of proliferation Ki‑67, aurora kinase A, Erb‑B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2, glutathione S‑transferase Mu 1, estrogen receptor 1, progesterone receptor, B‑cell lymphoma 2, signal peptide CUB domain EGF‑like 2 and 5 reference genes. The remaining 28 genes are involved in various pathways and functions. This result indicates that there is a significant correlation between PS and RS scores, although validation of results is required to accurately determine the risk of distant recurrence. The Biomark assay is an easy and inexpensive way to measure mRNA expression. The present study demonstrates the possibility of the Biomark assay as an alternative for defining chemotherapy benefit in individual patients with ER‑positive early‑stage breast cancer.
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

February-2019
Volume 17 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

  • Journal Metrics
  • Impact Factor: 2.9
  • Ranked Oncology
    (total number of cites)
  • CiteScore: 6.3
  • CiteScore Rank: Q2: #119/366 Oncology
  • Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.725
  • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.639
International Symposium on Molecular Medicine Conference Banner
The Cancer Story
World Congress on Advances in Oncology and International Symposium on Molecular Medicine Conference Banner
World Academy Of Sciences Banner
Heyday Road Banner

0

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Kim J, Kim A and Kim C: Examination of the Biomark assay as an alternative to Oncotype DX for defining chemotherapy benefit. Oncol Lett 17: 1812-1818, 2019
APA
Kim, J., Kim, A., & Kim, C. (2019). Examination of the Biomark assay as an alternative to Oncotype DX for defining chemotherapy benefit. Oncology Letters, 17, 1812-1818. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.9784
MLA
Kim, J., Kim, A., Kim, C."Examination of the Biomark assay as an alternative to Oncotype DX for defining chemotherapy benefit". Oncology Letters 17.2 (2019): 1812-1818.
Chicago
Kim, J., Kim, A., Kim, C."Examination of the Biomark assay as an alternative to Oncotype DX for defining chemotherapy benefit". Oncology Letters 17, no. 2 (2019): 1812-1818. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.9784