Head-to-head comparison of the 70-gene signature versus the 21-gene assay: Cost-effectiveness and the effect of compliance

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volumn 131, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 627-636

  Retèl, Valesca P ^a   Joore, Manuela A ^b,c   Van Harten, Wim H ^a,d  

^a ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

21 gene recurrence score; 70 gene signature; Cost effectiveness analysis; Head to head comparison; MammaPrint; Oncotype DX

Indexed keywords

21 GENE ASSAY; 70 GENE SIGNATURE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PROGNOSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; GENETIC ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNCERTAINTY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; PROGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84856146284     PISSN: 01676806     EISSN: 15737217     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1769-7     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. LJ Van't Veer H Dai MJ van de Vijver, et al. 2002 Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer Nature 415 530 536 10.1038/415530a (Pubitemid 34130608)
2. S Paik S Shak G Tang, et al. 2004 A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer N Engl J Med 351 2817 2826 15591335 10.1056/NEJMoa041588 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhslymsw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 40051905)
3. F Cardoso L Van't Veer E Rutgers, et al. 2008 Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial J Clin Oncol 26 729 735 18258980 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.3222 (Pubitemid 351264385)
4. JA Sparano S Paik 2008 Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials J Clin Oncol 26 721 728 18258979 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.1068 (Pubitemid 351264384)
5. PM Ravdin LA Siminoff GJ Davis, 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 11181660 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3gsFalsg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32176272)
6. A Goldhirsch JN Ingle RD Gelber, et al. 2009 Threshold for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009 Ann Oncol 20 1319 1329 19535820 10.1093/annonc/mdp322 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1Mrjtlyhug%3D%3D
7. J Hornberger LE Cosler GH Lyman 2005 Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer Am J Manag Care 11 313 324 15898220 (Pubitemid 40646936)
8. GH Lyman LE Cosler NM Kuderer, et al. 2007 Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies Cancer 109 1011 1018 17311307 10.1002/cncr.22506 (Pubitemid 46435378)
9. M Kondo SL Hoshi H Ishiguro, et al. 2008 Economic evaluation of 21-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer in Japan Breast Cancer Res Treat 112 175 187 18075786 10.1007/s10549-007-9842-y
10. DT Tsoi M Inoue CM Kelly, et al. 2010 Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer Oncologist 15 457 465 20421264 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0275
11. N Oestreicher SD Ramsey HM Linden, et al. 2005 Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med 7 380 389 16024969 10.1097/01.GIM.0000170776.31248.75 (Pubitemid 41139621)
12. VP Retèl MA Joore M Knauer, et al. 2010 Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant Online for early breast cancer Eur J Cancer 46 1382 1391 20359886 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.035
13. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford
14. L Marchionni RF Wilson AC Wolff, et al. 2008 Systematic review: gene expression profiling assays in early-stage breast cancer Ann Intern Med 148 358 369 18252678 (Pubitemid 351665467)
15. M Thomassen Q Tan F Eiriksdottir, et al. 2007 Comparison of gene sets for expression profiling: prediction of metastasis from low-malignant breast cancer Clin Cancer Res 13 18 5355 5360 17875763 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0249 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtVCitL%2FL (Pubitemid 47510360)
16. C Fan DS Oh L Wessels, et al. 2006 Concordance among gene-expression- based predictors for breast cancer N Engl J Med 355 560 569 16899776 10.1056/NEJMoa052933 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XotVKnur4%3D (Pubitemid 44200649)
17. Grutters JPC, Seferina SC, Tjan-Heijnen VCG et al (2011) Bridging trial and decision: a checklist to frame health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Value Health 14(5):777-784
18. A Goldhirsch WC Wood RD Gelber, et al. 2003 Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer J Clin Oncol 21 3357 3365 12847142 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.576 (Pubitemid 46606270)
19. Rutgers E, Piccart M, Delaloge S et al (2010) The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: first results of the pilot phase (Abstract 444). Eur J Cancer Suppl 8(3):188
20. Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH (2000) Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en richtlijnprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. College voor zorgverzekeringen, Amstelveen
21. MC Weinstein 2006 Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation Pharmacoeconomics 24 1043 1053 17067190 10.2165/00019053- 200624110-00002 (Pubitemid 44683362)
22. E Fenwick K Claxton M Sculpher 2001 Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves Health Econ 10 779 787 11747057 10.1002/hec.635 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnpvVSmsQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 34041389)
23. (2006) Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg: Zinnige en duurzame zorg [Sensible and durable care]. Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, Zoetermeer (in Dutch). Available at: http://rvz.net/uploads/docs/Advies-Zinnige-en- duurzame-zorg.pdf
24. M Lothgren N Zethraeus 2000 Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves Health Econ 9 623 630 11103928 10.1002/1099-1050(200010)9:7<623::AID-HEC539>3.0.CO;2-V 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7islWnsA%3D%3D
25. B Haibe-Kains C Desmedt F Piette, et al. 2008 Comparison of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer BMC Genomics 9 394 18717985 10.1186/1471-2164-9-394
26. JM Bueno-de-Mesquita W van Harten V Retel, et al. 2007 Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER) Lancet Oncol 8 1079 1087 18042430 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70346-7 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhsVWjurzM (Pubitemid 350182954)
27. SS Lo PB Mumby J Norton, et al. 2010 Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection J Clin Oncol 28 1671 1676 20065191 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.2119
28. CC Earle D Coyle WK Evans 1998 Cost-effectiveness analysis in oncology Ann Oncol 9 475 482 9653486 10.1023/A:1008292128615 1:STN:280: DyaK1czhslelug%3D%3D (Pubitemid 28270633)
29. TO Tengs A Wallace 2000 One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates Med Care 38 583 637 10843310 10.1097/00005650-200006000-00004 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3czgtVaqtA%3D%3D
30. JP Jansen B Crawford G Bergman W Stam 2008 Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons Value Health 11 5 956 964 18489499 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00347.x
31. P Brauchli B Thürlimann SN Crowe R Hermann 2010 What is the value of the 21-gene recurrence score? J Clin Oncol 28 32 671 672 10.1200/JCO.2010.30. 3313