Adjunctive Statistical Standardization of Adjuvant Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor in Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.27 Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Trial of Exemestane Versus Anastrozole

Judith-Anne W. Chapman,Jane Bayani,Sandip SenGupta,John M.S. Bartlett,Tammy Piper,Mary Anne Quintayo,Shakeel Virk,Paul E. Goss,James N. Ingle,Matthew J. Ellis,George W. Sledge,G. Thomas Budd,Manuela Rabaglio,Rafat H. Ansari,Richard Tozer,David P. D'Souza,Haji Chalchal,Silvana Spadafora,Vered Stearns,Edith A. Perez,Karen A. Gelmon,Timothy J. Whelan,Catherine Elliott,Lois E. Shepherd,Bingshu E. Chen,Karen J. Taylor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.24.00835
IF: 45.3
2024-06-03
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:PURPOSE ASCO/College of American Pathologists guidelines recommend reporting estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) as positive with (1%-100%) staining. Statistically standardized quantitated positivity could indicate differential associations of positivity with breast cancer outcomes. METHODS MA.27 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066573 ) was a phase III adjuvant trial of exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Immunochemistry ER and PgR HSCORE and % positivity (%+) were centrally assessed by machine image quantitation and statistically standardized to mean 0 and standard deviation (SD) 1 after Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations of square for ER; for PgR, (1) natural logarithm (0.1 added to 0 HSCOREs and 0%+) and (2) square root. Our primary end point was MA.27 distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at a median 4.1-year follow-up, and secondary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Univariate survival with cut points at SDs about a mean of 0 (≤–1; (–1, 0]; (0, 1]; >1) was described with Kaplan-Meier plots and examined with Wilcoxon (Peto-Prentice) test statistic. Adjusted Cox multivariable regressions had two-sided Wald tests and nominal significance P < .05. RESULTS Of 7,576 women accrued, 3,048 women's tumors had machine-quantitated image analysis results: 2,900 (95%) for ER, 2,726 (89%) for PgR, and 2,582 (85% of 3,048) with both ER and PgR. Higher statistically standardized ER and PgR HSCORE and %+ were associated with better univariate DDFS and EFS ( P < .001). In multivariable assessments, ER HSCORE and %+ were not significantly associated ( P = .52-.88) with DDFS in models with PgR, whereas higher PgR HSCORE and %+ were significantly associated with better DDFS ( P = .001) in models with ER. CONCLUSION Adjunctive statistical standardization differentiated quantitated levels of ER and PgR. Patients with higher ER- and PgR-standardized units had superior DDFS compared with those with HSCOREs and %+ ≤–1.
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?