Cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in the context of multifactorial decision making to guide chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 203-211

  Reed, Shelby D ^a,b   Dinan, Michaela A ^a   Schulman, Kevin A ^a,b   Lyman, Gary H ^b,c  

^a DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b DUKE CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjuvant chemotherapy; Breast neoplasms; Cost benefit analysis; Gene expression; Health care costs; Prognosis

Indexed keywords

21 GENE RECURRENCE SCORE ASSAY; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER REGRESSION; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; DISTANT METASTASIS; EARLY CANCER; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC PROCEDURES; HEALTH CARE COST; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; LOW RISK POPULATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84875149038     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.119     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with nodenegative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-positive tumors. N Engl J Med 1989;320:479-484.
2. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1673-1682.
3. 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;351:2817-2826.
4. 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;24:3726-3734.
5. Tang 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;127:133-142.
6. Hornberger 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;11:313-324.
7. Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J. 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;109:1011-1018.
8. Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, Linden HM, et al. Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med 2005;7:380-389.
9. Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME, et al. Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2218-2226.
10. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genet Med 2009;11:66-XX.
11. Marchionni L, Wilson RF, Marinopoulos SS, et al. Impact of gene expression profiling tests on breast cancer outcomes. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007;160:1-105.
12. 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;28:1671-1676.
13. Elder EE, Hay SB, Moore K. Factors influencing treatment recommendations in node-negative breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 2011;7:26-30.
14. Nowak V, Ah-See M, Ravichandran D. Breast cancer multidisciplinary team adjuvant therapy decision making and adjuvant! Online. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2010;22:87-88.
15. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2008. Figure 4.11. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2008/index.html. Accessed 4 August 2011.
16. Arias E. United States life tables, 2004. National Vital Statistics Report 56:1-40. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56-09.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
17. Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, McCune JS, Linden HM, Veenstra DL. The cost of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104:2054-2062.
18. Hensley ML, Dowell J, Herndon JE II, et al. Economic outcomes of breast cancer survivorship: CALGB study 79804. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;91:153-161.
19. Stokes ME, Thompson D, Montoya EL, Weinstein MC, Winer EP, Earle CC. Ten-year survival and cost following breast cancer recurrence: estimates from SEER-medicare data. Value Health 2008;11:213-220.
20. Drolet M, Maunsell E, Mondor M, et al. Work absence after breast cancer diagnosis: a population-based study. CMAJ 2005;173:765-771.
21. Yabroff KR, Davis WW, Lamont EB, et al. Patient time costs associated with cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:14-23.
22. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Compensation Survey: Table 1-Summary: Mean hours earnings and weekly hours for selected worker and establishment characteristics. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb1344.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2012.
23. Schleinitz MD, DePalo D, Blume J, Stein M. Can differences in breast cancer utilities explain disparities in breast cancer care? J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:1253-1260.
24. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision Modeling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.
25. Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J. Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010;10:553-566.
26. Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jönsson B, Rehnberg C. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res 2007;16:1073-1081.
27. Hornberger J, Chien R, Krebs K, Hochheiser L. US insurance program's experience with a multigene assay for early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2011;17(5 Spec No):e194-e202.
28. Geffen DB, Abu-Ghanem S, Sion-Vardy N, et al. The impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on decision making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer in an oncology practice with a unified treatment policy. Ann Oncol 2011;22:2381-2386.
29. Klang SH, Hammerman A, Liebermann N, Efrat N, Doberne J, Hornberger J. Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an Israeli-managed health-care organization. Value Health 2010;13:381-387.
30. 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;196:527-529.
31. Oratz R, Paul D, Cohn AL, Sedlacek SM. Impact of a commercial reference laboratory test recurrence score on decision making in early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 2007;3:182-186.
32. Kelly CM, Krishnamurthy S, Bianchini G, et al. Utility of oncotype DX risk estimates in clinically intermediate risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-normal, grade II, lymph node-negative breast cancers. Cancer 2010;116:5161-5167.
33. Henry LR, Stojadinovic A, Swain SM, Prindiville S, Cordes R, Soballe PW. The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions. J Surg Oncol 2009;99:319-323.
34. Tsoi DT, Inoue M, Kelly CM, Verma S, Pritchard KI. Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist 2010;15:457-465.
35. Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Yamanaka T, Ishiguro H, Toi M. 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: 739-749.
36. Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009;12:409-418.
37. 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;18:3399-3406.
38. Thompson D, Taylor DC, Montoya EL, Winer EP, Jones SE, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness of switching to exemestane after 2 to 3 years of therapy with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Value Health 2007;10:367-376.
39. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 1996.
40. US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu. Accessed 26 January 2011.