MammaPrint: Prognosis and Prediction

MammaPrint Enables Personalized Treatment Recommendations for Your Breast Cancer Patients

Physicians know that early detection is one of the keys to successful treatment.  If breast cancer is caught early, the tumor can be surgically removed and with the appropriate treatment, most patients can fully recover.  However, within 5 to 10 years, upwards of 30% of patients with early stage breast cancer develop metastases. The identification of patients with high risk of distant recurrence is essential for systematic adjuvant therapy to be most effective.


At the same time, while adjuvant therapies such as chemotherapy and hormonal therapy (e.g. Tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) may reduce the risk of distant metastases by approximately one-third for some patients, it is estimated that more than 70% of patients receiving such therapy may have survived without it –and may have safely avoided the often harmful side-effects.(1)


MammaPrint delivers a powerful means of individualized risk assessment by analyzing the complex tumor biology of each patient. MammaPrint interrogates the critical molecular pathways involved in the metastatic cascade leading to distant recurrence.  Understanding the gene activity of your patient's tumor, and her individual risk of distant recurrence, allows you to make more informed decsions the most suitable treatment regimen.


MammaPrint Identifies Early Metastatic Risk

A key attribute of the MammaPrint gene signature is the ability to identify the likelihood of distant recurrence in the first five years following diagnosis.(3) As reported by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, adjuvant chemotherapy exerts its principal benefit in reducing early metastasis risk during the first five years.(1) Thus, MammaPrint is powerfully prognostic and predictive during the same interval over which adjuvant chemotherapy exerts the maximum benefit.



1)   EBCTCG, Lancet Oncology 2005; 365: 1687 -1717

3)   Buyse M, Loi S, Van’t Veer L, et. al., J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98(17):1183-1192

Information extracted from