Is a comparative clinical trial for breast cancer tumor markers to monitor disease recurrence warranted? A value of information analysis

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 325-334

  Thariani, Rahber ^a   Henry, Norah Lynn ^b   Ramsey, Scott D ^c   Blough, David K ^c   Barlow, Bill ^a,c   Gralow, Julie R ^d   Veenstra, David L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^d Seattle Cancer Center Alliance   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer recurrence; EVSI; expected value of sample information; quality of life; tumor marker; value of information

Indexed keywords

CA 15-3 ANTIGEN; CA 27-29 ANTIGEN; CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN; TUMOR MARKER;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER SURVIVOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FOLLOW UP; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INVESTMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; POPULATION SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL RATE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84886944757     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.15     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Molina R, Jo J, Filella X, et al. C-erbB-2, CEA and CA 15.3 serum levels in the early diagnosis of recurrence of breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 19(4A), 2551-2555 (1999).
2. Molina R, Jo J, Filella X, et al. c-erbB-2 oncoprotein, CEA, and CA 15.3 in patients with breast cancer: prognostic value. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 51(2), 109-119 (1998).
3. Jensen JL, Maclean GD, Suresh MR, et al. Possible utility of serum determinations of CA 125 and CA 27.29 in breast cancer management. Int. J. Biol. Markers 6(1), 1-6 (1991).
4. Henry L. SWOG Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Serial Circulating Tumor Markers In Detecting Recurrence Stage Ii/Iii Breast Cancer Patients. SWOG, MI, USA (2009).
5. Hensley ML, Dowell J, Herndon JE 2nd, et al. Economic outcomes of breast cancer survivorship: CALGB study 79804. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 91(2), 153-161 (2005).
6. Keating NL, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Winer EP, Ayanian JZ. Surveillance testing among survivors of early-stage breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(9), 1074-1081 (2007).
7. Foster JA, Abdolrasulnia M, Doroodchi H, McClure J, Casebeer L. Practice patterns and guideline adherence of medical oncologists in managing patients with early breast cancer. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 7(7), 697-706 (2009).
8. Liberati A. The GIVIO trial on the impact of follow-up care on survival and quality of life in breast cancer patients. Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care Evaluation. Ann. Oncol. 6(Suppl. 2), 41-46 (1995).
9. Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators. JAMA 271(20), 1587-1592 (1994).
10. Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 271(20), 1593-1597 (1994).
11. Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C, et al. Intensive vs clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: 10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 281(17), 1586 (1999).
12. Henry NL, Gralow JR, Hayes D, Mankoff D, Ramsey S. Concept Outline For Proposed Cancer Control Study. SWOG, MI, USA (2010).
13. Joseph E, Hyacinthe M, Lyman GH, et al. Evaluation of an intensive strategy for follow-up and surveillance of primary breast cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 5(6), 522-528 (1998).
14. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J. Health Econ. 18(3), 341-364 (1999).
15. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 360(9334), 711-715 (2002).
16. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med. Decis. Making 24(2), 207-227 (2004).
17. Eckermann S, Karnon J, Willan AR. The value of value of information: best informing research design and prioritization using current methods. Pharmacoeconomics 28(9), 699-709 (2010).
18. Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 16(2), 195-209 (2007).
19. Willan AR, Pinto EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat. Med. 24(12), 1791-1806 (2005).
20. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365(9472), 1687-1717 (2005)
21. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Baum M, et al. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 10-year analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 11(12), 1135-1141 (2010).
22. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin. Cancer Res. 13(15), 4429-4434 (2007).
23. Cronin KA, Harlan LC, Dodd KW, Abrams JS, Ballard-Barbash R. Population-based estimate of the prevalence of HER-2 positive breast cancer tumors for early stage patients in the US. Cancer Invest. 28(9), 963-968 (2010).
24. Voogd AC, Nielsen M, Peterse JL, et al. Differences in risk factors for local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy for stage I and II breast cancer: pooled results of two large European randomized trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 19(6), 1688-1697 (2001).
25. Chia SK, Speers CH, D'yachkova Y, et al. The impact of new chemotherapeutic and hormone agents on survival in a population-based cohort of women with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 110(5), 973-979 (2007).
26. Gerard K, Johnston K, Brown J. The role of a pre-scored multi-attribute health classification measure in validating condition-specific health state descriptions. Health Econ. 8(8), 685-699 (1999).
27. Johnston K, Brown J, Gerard K, O'Hanlon M, Morton A. Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc. Sci. Med. 47(2), 213-222 (1998).
28. Chan DW, Beveridge RA, Muss H, et al. Use of Truquant BR radioimmunoassay for early detection of breast cancer recurrence in patients with stage II and stage III disease. J. Clin. Oncol. 15(6), 2322-2328 (1997).
29. 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 11(5), 313-324 (2005).
30. Koerkamp BG, Spronk S, Stijnen T, Hunink MG. Value of information analyses of economic randomized controlled trials: the treatment of intermittent claudication. Value Health 13(2), 242-250 (2010).
31. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation (Handbooks in Health Economic Evaluation). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2006).
32. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT Jr, Leslie D, Roberts MS. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med. Care 46(4), 349-356 (2008).
33. Nadler E, Eckert B, Neumann PJ. Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value? Oncologist 11(2), 90-95 (2006).
34. Nicolini A, Anselmi L, Michelassi C, Carpi A. Prolonged survival by 'early' salvage treatment of breast cancer patients: a retrospective 6-year study. Br. J. Cancer 76(8), 1106-1111 (1997).
35. Kovner F, Merimsky O, Hareuveni M, Wigler N, Chaitchik S. Treatment of disease-negative but mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen-positive breast cancer patients with tamoxifen: preliminary results of a prospective controlled randomized trial. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 35(1), 80-83 (1994).
36. Merimsky O, Kovner F, Inbar M, Hareuveni M, Rosenboim Y, Chaitchik S. Tamoxifen for disease-negative but MCA-positive breast cancer patients. Oncol. Rep. 4(4), 843-847 (1997).
37. Tumour markers in breast cancer-EGTM recommendations. European Group on Tumor Markers. Anticancer Res. 19(4A), 2803-2805 (1999).
38. Molina R, Barak V, van Dalen A, et al. Tumor markers in breast cancer-European Group on Tumor Markers recommendations. Tumour Biol. 26(6), 281-293 (2005).
39. Eddy DM. Clinical policies and the quality of clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 307(6), 343-347 (1982).
40. Bon GG, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Kenemans P, et al. Clinical and technical evaluation of ACS BR serum assay of MUC1 gene-derived glycoprotein in breast cancer, and comparison with CA 15-13 assays. Clin. Chem. 43(4), 585-593 (1997).
41. Gion M, Mione R, Leon AE, Dittadi R. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CA27.29 and CA15.3 in primary breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 45(5), 630-637 (1999).
42. Eckermann S, Willan AR. Time and expected value of sample information wait for no patient. Value Health 11(3), 522-526 (2008).
43. Champion L, Brain E, Giraudet AL, et al. Breast cancer recurrence diagnosis suspected on tumor marker rising: value of whole-body 18FDG-PET/CT imaging and impact on patient management. Cancer 117(8), 1621-1629 (2011).
44. Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK, et al. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur. Radiol. 13(7), 1635-1644 (2003).
45. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. A decision-analysis model. N. Engl. J. Med. 324(3), 160-168 (1991).
46. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 Update of Recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Breast Cancer. www.asco.org/institute-quality/ american-society-clinical-oncology-2007-update-recommendations-use-tumor-markers
47. Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) Test. Item# LC002139. www.lef.org/ Vitamins-Supplements/ItemLC002139/Carcinoembryonic-Antigen-CEA-Blood-Test.html
48. Cancer Antigen 27.29. Item# LC140293. www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/ ItemLC140293/Cancer-Antigen-2729-Blood-Test.html
49. Cancer Antigen 15-3. Item# LC143404. www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/ ItemLC143404/Cancer-Antigen-15-13-Blood-Test.html
50. Health Testing Centers. Cancer Antigen 27.29 (CA 27.29) Blood Test. www.healthtestingcenters.com/ca-2729-blood-test.aspx