Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: A systematic review

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 104, Issue 14, 2012, Pages 1068-1079

  Hornberger, John ^a   Michael D Alvarado, ^a   Rebecca Chien, ^a   Hialy R Gutierrez, ^a   Tiffany M Yu, ^a   William J Gradishar, ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; GENE EXPRESSION; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LITERATURE; MEDLINE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENCE RISK; REVIEW; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDITY;

EID: 84864458634     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs261     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program SEER*Stat Database. In: National Cancer Institute DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch; 2010.
2. Jemal A, Thun M, Ries L, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(23):1672-1694.
3. E arly Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687-1717.
4. H arris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5287-5312.
5. Breast Cancer, V.2.2011. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/ PDF/breast.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2012.
6. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, et al. Thresholds for therapies: Highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(8):1319-1329.
7. O livotto I, Bajdi C, Ravdin P, et al. Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2716-2725.
8. R avdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(4):980-991.
9. R oss JS, Hatzis C, Symmans WF, et al. Commercialized multigene predictors of clinical outcome for breast cancer. Oncologist. 2008;13(5):477-493.
10. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(21):1446- 1452.
11. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817-2826.
12. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(23):3726-3734.
13. van't Veer LJ, Paik S, Hayes DF. Gene expression profiling of breast cancer: A new tumor marker. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(8):1631-1635.
14. M a XJ, Salunga R, Dahiya S, et al. A five-gene molecular grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(9):2601-2608.
15. H ayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: A framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88(20):1456-1466.
16. H ornberger J, Quinn B. A revised framework for appraising novel molecular classifiers. In: 14th International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2009; Orlando, FL.
17. Campbell HE, Taylor MA, Harris AL, et al. An investigation into the performance of the Adjuvant! Online prognostic programme in early breast cancer for a cohort of patients in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(7):1074-1084.
18. M ook S, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, et al. Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of prognosis calculation for breast cancer with the online Adjuvant! program: A hospital-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(11):1070-1076.
19. Webster LR, Lee SF, Ringland C, et al. Poor-prognosis estrogen receptorpositive breast cancer identified by histopathologic subclassification. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(20):6625-6633.
20. Zujewski JA, Kamin L. Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: The TAILORx trial. Future Oncol. 2008;4(5):603-610.
21. National Cancer Institute. Tamoxifen Citrate, Letrozole, Anastrozole, or Exemestane with or without Chemotherapy in Treating Patients with Invasive RxPONDER Breast Cancer. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01 272037?term=RxPONDER&rank=1. Accessed February 7, 2012.
22. M ook S, Bonnefoi H, Pruneri G, et al.Daily clinical practice of fresh tumour tissue freezing and gene expression profiling; logistics pilot study preceding the MINDACT trial. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(7):1201-1208.
23. T ang G, Shak S, Paik S, et al. Comparison of the prognostic and predictive utilities of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer: Results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(1):133-142.
24. M amounas EP, Tang G, Fisher B, et al. Association between the 21-gene recurrence score assay and risk of locoregional recurrence in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: Results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(10):1677-1683.
25. R oss DT, Kim CY, Tang G, et al. Chemosensitivity and stratification by a five monoclonal antibody immunohistochemistry test in the NSABP B14 and B20 trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(20):6602-6609.
26. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with nodepositive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: A retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55-65.
27. Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S, et al. Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(25):4063-4071.
28. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al.Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: A TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1829-1834.
29. Jerevall PL, Brommesson S, Strand C, et al. Exploring the two-gene ratio in breast cancer-independent roles for HOXB13 and IL17BR in prediction of clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;107(2):225-234.
30. Jerevall PL, Jansson A, Fornander T, et al. Predictive relevance of HOXB13 protein expression for tamoxifen benefit in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(4):R53.
31. Paridaens RJ, Gelber S, Cole BF, et al. Adjuvant! Online estimation of chemotherapy effectiveness when added to ovarian function suppression plus tamoxifen for premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(1):303-310.
32. Bartlett JM, Thomas J, Ross DT, et al. Mammostrat as a tool to stratify breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence during endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(4):R47.
33. Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R, et al. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117(3):483-495.
34. Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(17):1183-1192.
35. Chang JC, Makris A, Gutierrez MC, et al. Gene expression patterns in formalin- fixed, paraffin-embedded core biopsies predict docetaxel chemosensitivity in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(2):233-240.
36. E steva FJ, Sahin AA, Cristofanilli M, et al. Prognostic role of a multigene reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in patients with node-negative breast cancer not receiving adjuvant systemic therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(9):3315-3319.
37. H abel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(3):R25.
38. Ishitobi M, Goranova TE, Komoike Y, et al. Clinical utility of the 70-gene MammaPrint profile in a Japanese population. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40(6):508-512.
39. M ina L, Soule SE, Badve S, et al. Predicting response to primary chemotherapy: Gene expression profiling of paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103(2):197-208.
40. M ook S, Knauer M, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, et al.Metastatic potential of T1 breast cancer can be predicted by the 70-gene MammaPrint signature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(5):1406-1413.
41. M ook S, Schmidt MK, Viale G, et al. The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116(2):295-302.
42. M ook S, Schmidt MK, Weigelt B, et al. The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(4):717-722.
43. R ing BZ, Seitz RS, Beck R, et al. Novel prognostic immunohistochemical biomarker panel for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(19):3039-3047.
44. Straver ME, Glas AM, Hannemann J, et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(3):551-558.
45. T oi M, Iwata H, Yamanaka T, et al. Clinical significance of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in hormone receptor-positive early stage primary breast cancer in the Japanese population. Cancer. 2010;116(13):3112-3118.
46. T utt A, Wang A, Rowland C, et al. Risk estimation of distant metastasis in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients using an RT -PCR based prognostic expression signature. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:339.
47. van de Vijver M, He Y, van't Veer L, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(25):1999- 2009.
48. Wittner BS, Sgroi DC, Ryan PD, et al. Analysis of the MammaPrint breast cancer assay in a predominantly postmenopausal cohort. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(10):2988-2993.
49. Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K, et al. Gene expression profiles in paraffinembedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(29):7265-7277.
50. Y orozuya K, Takeuchi T, Yoshida M, et al. Evaluation of Oncotype DX Recurrence Score as a prognostic factor in Japanese women with estrogen receptor-positive, node-negative primary Stage I or IIA breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136(6):939-944.
51. Knauer M, Mook S, Rutgers EJ, et al. The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(3):655-661.
52. Kunz G. Use of a genomic test (MammaPrint) in daily clinical practice to assist in risk stratification of young breast cancer patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(3):597-602.
53. Ademuyiwa FO, Thorat MA, Jain RK, et al.Expression of Forkheadbox protein A1, a marker of luminal A type breast cancer, parallels low Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence scores. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(2):270-275.
54. Asad J, Jacobson AF, Estabrook A, et al. Does oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer? Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):527-529.
55. H enry LR, Stojadinovic A, Swain SM, et al. The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99(6):319-323.
56. H ornberger J, Chien R, Krebs K, et al. US insurance program's experience with a multigene assay for early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(3 suppl):e38s-45s.
57. Joh JE, Esposito NN, Kiluk JV, et al. The effect of Oncotype DX recurrence score on treatment recommendations for patients with estrogen receptorpositive early stage breast cancer and correlation with estimation of recurrence risk by breast cancer specialists. Oncologist. 2011;16(11):1520-1526.
58. Klang SH, Hammerman A, Liebermann N, et al. Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an Israelimanaged health-care organization. Value Health. 2010;13(4):381-387.
59. Lo SS, Mumby PB, Norton J, et al. 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. 2010;28(10):1671-1676.
60. O ratz R, Paul D, Cohn A, et al. Impact of a commercial reference laboratory test recurrence score on decision making in early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2007;3(4):182-186.
61. Partin JF, Mamounas EP. Impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay compared with standard clinicopathologic guidelines in adjuvant therapy selection for node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(12):3399-3406.
62. R ayhanabad JA, Difronzo LA, Haigh PI, et al. Changing paradigms in breast cancer management: Introducing molecular genetics into the treatment algorithm. Am Surg. 2008;74(10):887-890.
63. Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH, Retel VP, et al. Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: A prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(12):1079-1087.
64. Balakrishnan A, Haysom SA, Ravichandran D. Adjuvant! Online does not significantly influence adjuvant chemotherapy decisions of a breast cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT): A prospective study. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(6):1461-1462.
65. E pstein RJ, Leung TW, Mak J, et al. Utility of a web-based breast cancer predictive algorithm for adjuvant chemotherapeutic decision making in a multidisciplinary oncology center. Cancer Invest. 2006;24(4):367-373.
66. Nowak V, Ah-See M, Ravichandran D. Breast cancer multidisciplinary team adjuvant therapy decision making and Adjuvant! online. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010;22(1):87-88.
67. Siminoff LA, Gordon NH, Silverman P, et al. A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2006;15(11):1001- 1013.
68. H ornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. 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. 2005;11(5):313-324.
69. Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, et al. 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. 2008;112(1):175-187.
70. Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Yamanaka T, et al. Economic evaluation of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in lymph node-negative/positive, hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer based on Japanese validation study (JBCRG-TR03). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;127(3):739-749.
71. Lamond NW, Skedgel C, Rayson D, et al. Cost-utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012.
72. Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, et al. 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. 2007;109(6):1011-1018.
73. T soi DT, Inoue M, Kelly CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist. 2010;15(5):457-465.
74. Chen E, Tong K, Malin J. Cost-effectiveness of 70-gene MammaPrint signature in node-negative breast cancer. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(12):e333-342.
75. Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, et al. Economic evaluation of the 70-gene prognosis-signature (MammaPrint(R)) in hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2-negative early stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012.
76. R etel VP, Joore MA, Knauer M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant Online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010;46(8):1382-1391.
77. Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO, et al. Breast cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7(2):122-192.
78. R etel VP, Joore MA, van Harten WH. Head-to-head comparison of the 70-gene signature versus the 21-gene assay: Cost-effectiveness and the effect of compliance. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(2):627-636.
79. Y ang M, Rajan S, Issa AM. Cost effectiveness of gene expression profiling for early stage breast cancer: A decision-analytic model. Cancer. 2012.