Validation of a breast cancer assay for radiotherapy omission: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Per Karlsson,Anthony Fyles,S Laura Chang,Bradley Arrick,Frederick L Baehner,Per Malmström,Mårtin Fernö,Erik Holmberg,Martin Sjöström,Fei-Fei Liu,David A Cameron,Linda J Williams,John Ms Bartlett,Joanna Dunlop,Jacqueline Caldwell,Joseph F Loane,Elizabeth Mallon,Tammy Piper,Ian Kunkler,Felix Y Feng,Corey W Speers,Lori J Pierce,John P Bennett,Karen J Taylor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae262
2024-10-18
Abstract:Background: There are currently no molecular tests to identify individual breast cancers where radiotherapy (RT) offers no benefit. Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiotherapy (POLAR) is a 16-gene molecular signature developed to identify low risk cancers where RT will not further reduce recurrence rates. Methods: An individual participant data meta-analysis was performed in 623 cases of node-negative ER+/HER2-negative early breast cancer enrolled in three RT randomized trials for whom primary tumor material was available for analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model on time to locoregional recurrence (LRR) was used to test the interaction between POLAR score and RT. Results: 429 (69%) patients' tumors had a high POLAR score and 194 (31%) had a low score. Patients with high POLAR score had, in the absence of RT, a 10-year cumulative incidence of LRR: 20% (15%-26%) vs 5% (2%-11%) for those with a low score. Patients with a high POLAR score had a large benefit from RT (hazard ratio [HR] for RT vs no RT: 0.37 [0.23-0.60], p < .001). In contrast, there was no evidence of benefit from RT for patients with a low POLAR score (HR: 0.92 [0.42-2.02], p = .832). The test for interaction between RT and POLAR was statistically significant (p = .022). Conclusions: POLAR is not only prognostic for locoregional recurrence but also predictive of benefit from radiotherapy in selected patients. Patients ≥ 50 years with ER+/HER2-negative disease and a low POLAR score could consider omitting adjuvant RT. Further validation in contemporary clinical cohorts is required.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?