Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial

Abstract

This Review describes the work conducted by the TRANSBIG consortium in the development of the MINDACT (Microarray In Node negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy) trial. The goal of the trial is to provide definitive evidence regarding the clinical relevance of the 70-gene prognosis signature, and to assess the performance of this signature compared with that of traditional prognostic indicators for assigning adjuvant chemotherapy to patients with node-negative breast cancer. We outline the background work and the key questions in node-negative early-stage breast cancer, and then focus on the MINDACT trial design and statistical considerations. The challenges inherent in this trial in terms of logistics, implementation and interpretation of the results are also discussed. We hope that this article will trigger further discussion about the difficulties of setting up and analyzing trials aimed at establishing the worth of new methods for better selection of patients for cancer treatment.

Key Points

  • In the past 20 years, little progress has been made regarding new prognostic markers that can assist oncologists in treatment decision-making for node-negative early-stage breast cancer

  • By using gene-expression profiling, the Netherlands Cancer Institute developed a 70-gene prognostic signature for node-negative breast cancer that has now been commercialized. This signature was developed as a dichotomous risk classification for the endpoint of distant metastasis within 5 years and has been retrospectively validated in two series of patients

  • The MINDACT clinical trial will prospectively validate the 70-gene prognostic signature

  • Validation of the risk of distant relapse will be assessed through clinicopathologic criteria, using Adjuvant! Online and MammaPrint® (Agendia). In case of discordant results, patients will be randomized to treatment decision-making based on clinicopathologic risk or genomic risk

  • Two further randomizations will be possible in the MINDACT trial: randomization to chemotherapy, based on anthracycline-based regimens, and randomization to endocrine therapy, based on the outcome of 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 5 years of letrozole, compared with 7 years of letrozole

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Randomization of discordant cases in the MINDACT trial.
Figure 2: Biological material flowchart in the MINDACT trial.
Figure 3: Logistics of MINDACT—tumor biopsy collection, shipment, RNA extraction and eligibility check.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van de Vijver MJ et al. (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Eng J Med 447: 1999–2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hutchins L et al. (1998) CMF versus CAF with and without Tamoxifen in high-risk node-negative breast cancer patients and a natural history follow-up study in low-risk node-negative patients: First results of Intergroup trial INT 0102 [abstract #2]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17: a1

    Google Scholar 

  3. McShane LM et al. (2005) REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2: 416–422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. [No authors listed] (2001) The National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Bethesda, Maryland, USA. November 1–3, 2000. Proceedings. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 30: 1–152

  5. Goldhirsch A et al. (2005) Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 16: 1569–1583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. D'Eredita G et al. (2001) Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham prognostic index in patients with a long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution. Eur J Cancer 37: 591–596

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. van 't Veer LJ et al. (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415: 530–536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. van de Vijver MJ et al. (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347: 1999–2009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Piccart MJ et al. (2004) Multi-center external validation study of the Amsterdam 70-gene prognostic signature in node negative untreated breast cancer: are the results still outperforming the clinical-pathological criteria? [abstract] Breast Cancer Res Treat 88 (Suppl 1): aS38

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cardoso F et al. (2005) Multi-centre independent validation of a gene prognostic signature for patients with node-negative breast cancer (BC)—final results [abstract]. Breast Cancer Res Treat 95 (Suppl 1): aS301

    Google Scholar 

  11. Adjuvant! Online [http://www.adjuvantonline.com]

  12. Ravdin PM et al. (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19: 980–991

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Olivotto IA et al. (2005) Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23: 2716–2725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Simon R et al. (2003) Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 14–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dudoit S et al. (2002) Comparison of discrimination methods for the classification of tumors using gene expression data. JASA 97: 77–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. De Vita Jr VT et al. (Eds; 2006) Cancer. Principles and Practice of Oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cardoso F et al. (2005) Multi centre independent validation of a gene prognostic signature for patients with node negative breast cancer-final results [abstract]. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94 (Suppl 1): A301

    Google Scholar 

  18. Buyse M et al. (2006) Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1183–1192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365: 1687–1717

  20. Ross JS et al. (2003) The Her-2/neu gene and protein in breast cancer 2003: biomarker and target of therapy. Oncologist 8: 307–325

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith IE et al. (2005) Neoadjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer with anastrozole, tamoxifen or both in combination: the Immmediate Preoperative Aastrozole, Tamoxifen, or Combined with Tamoxifen (IMPACT) multicenter double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23: 5108–5116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. [No authors listed] (1999) ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med 18: 1905–1942

  23. O'Shaughnessy J et al. (2002) Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results. J Clin Oncol 20: 2812–2823

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones S et al. (2003) Three year results of a prospective randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients (pts) with stage I-III operable, invasive breast cancer comparing 4 courses of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) to 4 courses of docetaxel/ cyclophosphamide (TC) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol a59

  25. Goss PE et al. (2003) A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 349: 1793–1802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Coombes RC et al. (2004) A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 350: 1081–1092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Thurlimann BJ et al. (2005) BIG 1–98: randomized double-blind phase III study to evaluate letrozole (L) vs. tamoxifen (T) as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with receptor-positive breast cancer [abstract #511]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 23: 16S

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bonnefoi H et al. (2003) Locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancers treated with intensive epirubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy: are there molecular markers in the primary tumour that predict for 5-year clinical outcome? Ann Oncol 14: 406–413

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatima Cardoso.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

L van't Veer is a named inventor on a patent application for the 70-gene signature and reports being employed by Agendia B.V., the commercial entity that markets the 70-gene signature as Mammaprint®. The other authors declared they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bogaerts, J., Cardoso, F., Buyse, M. et al. Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 3, 540–551 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0591

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0591

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing