Clinical utility of gene-expression profiling in women with early breast cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 519-532

  Marrone, Michael ^a,b   Stewart, Alison ^a,b   Dotson, W David ^b  

^a McKing Consultation Corporation   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; clinical utility; evidence based medicine; gene expression profiling; prognosis

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; METHOTREXATE; TAMOXIFEN; TRANSCRIPTOME;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CINAHL; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COCHRANE LIBRARY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DNA MICROARRAY; EARLY CANCER; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EMBASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GENETICS; PROCEDURES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; HUMANS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; TRANSCRIPTOME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84942789840     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.140     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012;490:61-70.
2. Voduc KD, Cheang MC, Tyldesley S, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO, Kennecke H. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1684-1691.
3. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 2006;295:2492-2502.
4. Dawood S, Hu R, Homes MD, et al. Defining breast cancer prognosis based on molecular phenotypes: results from a large cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;126:185-192.
5. Kim SR, Paik S. Genomics of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Cancer J 2011;17:500-504.
6. Network NCC. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology-Breast Cancer. 2013;v2. 2013.
7. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifentreated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2817-2826.
8. van 't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002;415:530-536.
9. Harris 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;25:5287-5312.
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;11:66-73.
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) 2007:1-105.
12. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
13. Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kiun R, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann H. GRADE: what is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians BMJ 2008;336:995-998.
14. Smartt P. A Comparison of Gene Expression Profiling Tests for Breast Cancer. HSAC Report 3 (16), 2009.
15. Gene expression profiling for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in women with early breast cancer: an evidence-based and economic analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series [Internet] 2010;10:1-57.
16. Ward S, Scope A, Rafia R, Pandor A, Harnan S, Evans P. Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer management. Health Technology Assessment 2011.
17. Hornberger J, Alvarado MD, Rebecca C, Gutierrez HR, Yu TM, Gradishar WJ. Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:1068-1079.
18. Rouzier R, Pronzato P, Chéreau E, Carlson J, Hunt B, Valentine WJ. Multigene assays and molecular markers in breast cancer: systematic review of health economic analyses. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;139:621-637.
19. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1446-1452.
20. Akashi-Tanaka S, Shimizu C, Ando M, et al. 21-Gene expression profile assay on core needle biopsies predicts responses to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients. Breast 2009;18:171-174.
21. Kok M, Linn SC, Van Laar RK, et al. Comparison of gene expression profiles predicting progression in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;113:275-283.
22. Li LF, Xu XJ, Zhao Y, et al. Integrated gene expression profile predicts prognosis of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;113:231-237.
23. 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.
24. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:55-65.
25. 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.
26. Tang CJ, Crager M, Shak S, Wolmark N. Comparing the prediction of chemotherapy benefit in patient with node-geative, ER-postive breast cancer using the recurrence score and new measure that integrates clinical and pathological factors with the recurrence score. 33rd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 8-12 December 2010, San Antonio, TX.
27. 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.
28. Rayhanabad JA, Difronzo LA, Haigh PI, Romero L. Changing paradigms in breast cancer management: introducing molecular genetics into the treatment algorithm. Am Surg 2008;74:887-890.
29. 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.
30. Geffen DB, Amir N, Sion-Vardy N, et al. Stage I breast cancer in a regional oncology practice in Israel 2002-2006: clinicopathologic features, risk estimation and planned therapy of 328 consecutive patients. Breast 2009;18:316-321.
31. 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.
32. Ademuyiwa FO, Miller A, O'Connor T, et al. The effects of oncotype DX recurrence scores on chemotherapy utilization in a multi-institutional breast cancer cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;126:797-802.
33. Holt BG, Pudney D, Rolles M, et al. Results from a prospective clinical study on the impact of Oncotype DX on adjuvant treatment decision and risk classification by Nottingham prognostic index (NPI) and recurrence score (RS). Breast 2011;suppl 1(s43).
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Hornberger J, Chien R, Krebs K, Hochheiser L. US insurance program's experience with a multigene assay for early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 2011;7(suppl 3):e38s-e45s.
37. Joh JE, Esposito NN, Kiluk JV, et al. The effect of Oncotype DX recurrence score on treatment recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor-positive early stage breast cancer and correlation with estimation of recurrence risk by breast cancer specialists. Oncologist 2011;16:1520-1526.
38. 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.
39. 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;8:1079-1087.
40. Gevensleben H, Göhring UJ, Büttner R, et al. Comparison of MammaPrint and TargetPrint results with clinical parameters in German patients with early stage breast cancer. Int J Mol Med 2010;26:837-843.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, Yoshibayashi H, Toi M. Economic evaluation of 21-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay in lymph-nodenegative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;112:175-187.
44. Cosler LE, Lyman GH. Economic analysis of gene expression profile data to guide adjuvant treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer. Cancer Invest 2009;27:953-959.
45. de Lima Lopes G, Chien R, Hornberger J. Cost-benefit analysis of a 21-gene recurrence score for early-stage breast cancer in Singapore. ISPOR 4th Asia-Pacific Conference, 5-7 September 2010, Phuket, Thailand.
46. O'Leary B, Yoshizawa C, Foteff C, Chao C. Cost-effectiveness of the Oncotype DX assay in Australia: an exploratory analysis. ISPOR 4th Asia-Pacific Conference, 5-7 September 2010, Phuket, Thailand.
47. 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.
48. de Lima Lopes G, Chien R, Hornberger J. Cost-benefit analysis of a 21-gene recurrence score for early-stage breast cancer in Singapore. 12th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference, 16-19 March 2011, St Gallen, Switzerland.
49. Holt S, Bennet H, Bertelli G, Valentine WJ, Phillips C. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the Oncotype DX breast cancer assay in clinical practice in the UK. 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 6-10 December 2011, San Antonio, TX.
50. 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.
51. Hassan S, Mittmann N. A cost benefit analysis of the 21-gene breast cancer assay within a Canadian healtcare system. ASCO Annual metting, 2-7 June 2011, Chicago, IL.
52. Lacey L, Chien R, Hornberger J. Cost-utility of the 21-gene breast cancer assay (Oncotype DX) in the Irish healtcare setting. 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 6-10 December 2011, San Antonio, TX.
53. Lacey L, Hornberger J. Economic evaluation of Oncotype DX to target chemotherapy use in lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive, earlystage breast cancer. ISPOR 13th Annual European Conference, 6-9 November 2010, Prague, Czech Republic.
54. Paulden M, Franek J, Pham B, Krahn M. Gene expression profiling for guidling adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in women with early breast cancer: a costeffectiveness analysis of 1000 strategies for the provision of Adjuvant! Online, Oncotype DX and chemotherapy. ISPOR 16th Annual International Meeting, 21-25 May 2011, Baltimore, MD.
55. Ragaz J, Wilson K, Wong H, Muraca G, Hryniuk W, Bajdik C. Molecualr classification with 21 gene assay (Oncotype DX) shows in 196,967 ER positive patients high frequency of low reccurence. 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 6-10 December 2011, San Antonio, TX.
56. Vanderlaan B, Broder MS, Chang E, Oratz R, Bentley T. Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Managed Care 2011;17:455-464.
57. Hall PS, McCabe C, Stein RC, Cameron D. Economic evaluation of genomic testdirected chemotherapy for early-stage lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:56-66.
58. Lamond NW, Skedgel C, Rayson D, Lethbridge L, Younis T. Cost-utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;133:1115-1123.
59. Madaras B, Rozsa P, Gerencser Z. The impact of chemotherapeutic regimes on the cost-utility analysis of Oncotype DX assay. EBCC 8, Vienna, 21-24 March 2012, Vienna, Austria.
60. Wilson E, McDonnell D, Gullo G, et al. Economic impact of Oncotype DX assay in axillary node negative breast cancer, (AXN-BC) with postivie hormone receptor (REC+) and normal HER-2 (HER2-). European Society of Medical Oncology, 8-12 October 2010, Milan, Italy.
61. Retel VP, Joore MA, Knauer M, Linn SC, Hauptmann M, Harten WH. Costeffectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant Online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:1382-1391.
62. Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, Toi M. Economic evaluation of the 70-gene prognosis-signature (MammaPrint) 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;133:759-768.
63. Chen E, Tong KB, Malin JL. Cost-effectiveness of 70-gene MammaPrint signature in node-negative breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2010;16: e333-e342.
64. 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.
65. Zarca D, Stork-Sloots K, de Snoo F, Brink G, Dervaux Y, Boubli L. French cost effectiveness study of the MammaPrint 70-gene signature in early-stage breast cancer patients. European Cancer Organization, 20-24 September 2009, Berlin, Germany.
66. Thomson D, Russell K, Becker L, Klassen T, Hartling L. The evolution of a new publication type: Steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews. Res Synthesis Methods 2010;1:198-211.
67. Zujewski J, Kamin L. Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: the TAILORx trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;133:759-768.
68. Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart M, Bogaerts J, Delaloges S, Van 't Veer L, Rubio I. The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phases. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:2742-2749.
69. Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes. Contemp Clin Trials 2013;34:1-9.
70. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer mamanagement: MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, IHC4 and Mammostrat. Diagnostics consultation documents. 2012. http://guidance. nice. org. uk/DT/4/Consultation/DraftGuidance/pdf/English. Accessed 17 February, 2013.
71. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer mamanagement: MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, IHC4 and Mammostrat. Diagnostics consultation documents 2013; http://guidance. nice. org. uk/DT/4/9Jan2013/pdf/English. Accessed 19 Februrary 2013.
72. Dvorak L, Dolan M, Fink J, Varghese L, Henriksen J, Gulbahce HE. Correlation between HER2 determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of the oncotype DX test. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2013;21:196-199.
73. Kraus JA, Dabbs DJ, Beriwal S, Bhargava R. Semi-quantitative immunohistochemical assay versus oncotype DX() qRT-PCR assay for estrogen and progesterone receptors: an independent quality assurance study. Mod Pathol 2012;25:869-876.
74. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, Cheang MC, et al. Chemotherapy response and recurrence-free survival in neoadjuvant breast cancer depends on biomarker profiles: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;132:1049-1062.