Adjunctive statistical standardization of quantitated adjuvant ER and PgR in CCTG MA.27.

Judy-Anne Williams Chapman,Jane Bayani,Sandip SenGupta,John MS Battlett,Tammy Piper,Mary Anne Quintayo,Shakeel Virk,Paul E Goss,James N. Ingle,Matthew James Ellis,George W. Sledge,George Thomas Budd,Manuela Rabaglio,Vered Stearns,Edith A. Perez,Karen A. Gelmon,Timothy Joseph Whelan,Lois E. Shepherd,Bingshu E. Chen,Karen J Taylor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.567
IF: 45.3
2024-05-31
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:567 Background: We proposed adjunctive statistical standardization of quantitated ER and PgR to improve inter-laboratory comparability of biomarker results and therapeutic management of breast cancer. Methods: We utilized CCTG MA.27 (NCT00066573), an adjuvant phase III trial of exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with ER+ and/or PgR+ tumours. IHC ER and PgR HSCORE and % positivity (%+) were centrally assessed by machine image quantitation, and each statistically standardized to mean of 0, standard deviation of 1 following Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations of square for ER; for PgR, 1.) natural logarithm (0.1 added to 0 HSCOREs and 0 %+), 2.) square root. The primary endpoint was STEEP distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at the longest trial follow-up of median 4.1 years; a secondary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Survival was described with Kaplan-Meier plots and tested with the univariate Wilcoxon (Peto-Prentice) test statistic. We examined cut-points at standard deviations about mean of 0 ( 1) and explored single cut-points. Cox multivariate regressions were adjusted for age, T and N stage, grade, lymphovascular invasion, treatment, and baseline patient demographics; 2-sided Wald tests had nominal significance if p<0.05. Results: Of the 7576 women accrued, 3048 women had machine-quantitated image analysis results: 2900 (95%) for ER; 2726 (89%) for PgR. Statistically standardized HSCORE and %+ units differentiated both univariate DDFS and EFS; DDFS was significantly different by ER levels (p<0.001) and PgR levels (p<0.001). In multivariable assessments, ER HSCORE and %+ were not significantly associated (p=0.52-0.88) with the DDFS primary endpoint in models with PgR, while higher PgR HSCORE and %+ had significantly better DDFS (p=.001, in all instances) in models with ER. Conclusions: DDFS was superior for patients with higher ER and PgR standardized units compared with those with HSCOREs and %+ <-1. The adjunctive statistical standardization of ER and PgR performed here is similar to that mandated for clinical practice by the World Health Organization for BMD. [Table: see text]
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?