Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant Online for early breast cancer

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of MammaPrint® to Guide the Use of Endocrine Therapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Gene expression profiling tests can predict the risk of disease recurrence and select patients who are expected to benefit from therapy, while allowing other patients to forgo therapy. For breast cancers, these tests were initially designed to tailor chemotherapy decisions, but recent evidence suggests that they may also guide the use of endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of a prognostic test, MammaPrint^®, to guide the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients eligible according to Dutch treatment guidelines.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov decision model to calculate the lifetime costs (in 2020 Euros) and effects (survival and quality-adjusted life-years) of MammaPrint^® testing versus usual care (endocrine therapy for all patients) in a simulated cohort of patients. The population of interest includes patients for whom MammaPrint^® testing is currently not indicated, but for whom it may be possible to safely omit endocrine therapy. We applied both a health care perspective and a societal perspective and discounted costs (4%) and effects (1.5%). Model inputs were obtained from published research (including randomized controlled trials), nationwide cancer registry data, cohort data and publicly available data sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty around input parameters. Additionally, threshold analyses were performed to identify under which circumstances MammaPrint^® testing would be cost effective.

RESULTS

Adjuvant endocrine therapy guided by MammaPrint^® resulted in fewer side effects, more (quality-adjusted) life-years (0.10 and 0.07 incremental QALYS and LYs, respectively) and higher costs (€18,323 incremental costs) compared with the usual care strategy in which all patients receive endocrine therapy. While costs for hospital visits, medication costs and productivity costs were somewhat higher in the usual care strategy, these did not outweigh costs of testing in the MammaPrint^® strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €185,644 per QALY gained from a healthcare perspective and €180,617 from a societal perspective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the conclusions remained the same under changed input parameters and assumptions. Our results show that MammaPrint^® can become a cost-effective strategy when either the price of the test is reduced (> 50%), or the proportion of patients for which treatment is altered (i.e. those with ultra-low risk) increases to > 26%.

CONCLUSION

Standard MammaPrint^® testing to guide the use of endocrine therapy in our simulated patient population appears not to be a cost-effective strategy compared with usual care. The cost effectiveness of the test can be improved by reducing the price or preselecting a population more likely to benefit from the test.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Oncotype DX from a Brazilian private medicine perspective: a GBECAM multicenter retrospective study

Background

Oncotype DX (ODX) is a validated assay for the prediction of risk of recurrence and benefit of chemotherapy (CT) in both node negative (N0) and 1-3 positive nodes (N1), hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (eBC). Due to limited access to genomic assays in Brazil, treatment decisions remain largely driven by traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. ODX has been reported to be cost-effective in different health system, but limited data are available considering the reality of middle-income countries such as Brazil. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ODX across strata of clinical risk groups using data from a dataset of patients from Brazilian institutions.

Methods

Clinicopathologic and ODX information were analyzed for patients with T1-T3, N0-N1, HR+/HER2- eBC who had an ODX performed between 2005 and 2020. Projections of CT indication by clinicopathologic criteria were based on binary clinical risk categorization based on the Adjuvant! Algorithm. The ODX score was correlated with the indication of CT according to TAILORx and RxPONDER data. Two decision-tree models were developed. In the first model, low and high clinical risk patients were included while in the second, only high clinical risk patients were included. The cost for ODX and CT was based on the Brazilian private medicine perspective.

Results

In all, 645 patients were analyzed; 411 patients (63.7%) had low clinical risk and 234 patients (36.3%) had high clinical risk disease. The ODX indicated low (<11), intermediate (11-25), and high (>25) risk in 119 (18.4%), 415 (64.3%), and 111 (17.2%) patients, respectively. Among 645 patients analyzed in the first model, ODX was effective (5.6% reduction in CT indication) though with an incremental cost of United States Dollar (US$) 2288.87 per patient. Among 234 patients analyzed in the second model (high clinical risk only), ODX led to a 57.7% reduction in CT indication and reduced costs by US$ 4350.66 per patient.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that ODX is cost-saving for patients with high clinical risk HR+/HER2- eBC and cost-attractive for the overall population in the Brazilian private medicine perspective. Its incorporation into routine practice should be strongly considered by healthcare providers.

The Net Benefit of Personalized Medicine: A Systematic Literature Review and Regression Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Amidst conflicting expectations about the benefits of personalized medicine (PM) and the potentially high implementation costs, we reviewed the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PM relative to non-PM.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of PM and extracted data, including incremental quality-adjusted life-years (ΔQALYs) and incremental costs (Δcosts). ΔQALYs and Δcosts were combined with estimates of national cost-effectiveness thresholds to calculate incremental net monetary benefit (ΔNMB). Regression analyses were performed with these variables as dependent variables and PM intervention characteristics as independent variables. Random intercepts were used to cluster studies according to country.

RESULTS

Of 4774 studies reviewed, 128 were selected, providing cost-effectiveness data for 279 PM interventions. Most studies were set in the United States (48%) and the United Kingdom (16%) and adopted a healthcare perspective (82%). Cancer treatments (60%) and pharmaceutical interventions (72%) occurred frequently. Prognostic tests (19%) and tests to identify (non)responders (37%) were least and most common, respectively. Industry sponsorship occurred in 32%. Median ΔQALYs, Δcosts, and ΔNMB per individual were 0.03, Int$575, and Int$18, respectively. We found large heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness. Regression analysis showed that gene therapies were associated with higher ΔQALYs than other interventions. PM interventions for neoplasms brought higher ΔNMB than PM interventions for other conditions. Nonetheless, average ΔNMB in the 'neoplasm' group was found to be negative.

CONCLUSIONS

PM brings improvements in health but often at a high cost, resulting in 0 to negative ΔNMB on average. Pricing policies may be needed to reduce the costs of interventions with negative ΔNMB.

The cost impact of unselective vs selective MammaPrint testing in early-stage breast cancer in Southern Africa

Background

MammaPrint (MP) has been applied in South Africa (SA) for decision-making in early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer since 2006. The cost-impact of MP in SA has not been assessed.

Aim

To assess different MP testing strategies for cost-minimization in early-stage breast carcinoma using a funder perspective.

Methods

Clinico-pathologic information was extracted from a prospectively collected database. Clinical risk stratification was done using Adjuvant Online! (AOL) and the Predict V2.1 algorithm (www.predict.nhs.uk). An unselected MP testing strategy was compared to a selective strategy, testing only clinically high risk (cHigh) patients. Excluding human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive tumours, the costs for chemotherapy treatment and MP using funding data were used to evaluate the financial impact of these strategies.

Results

In 583 patients with 601 tumours, 52% were clinically low risk (cLow) (AOL) while the average Predict 10-year survival with chemotherapy was 2.9%. MP correlated strongly with Predict and 318 (60%) patients were MP low risk. Unselective testing allowed omission of chemotherapy in 44 (8.4%) patients but escalated cost by 57.7%. Using a selective testing strategy, only 251 would be tested, de-escalating treatment in 138 (55%) and reducing cost by 19.5%. Considering a Predict value up to 3.2% as cHigh, cost would be up to 7.3% (p = 0.0467) lower with a selective testing strategy.

Conclusion

MP allowed reduction in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Unselective use of MP increases overall costs. A selective testing strategy through clinical risk stratification using AOL/Predict results in substantial cost saving.

•

Current clinical application of MammaPrint in early breast cancer in South Africa results in the testing of a large percentage of clinically low risk patients.

•

When expensive assays, is used in this (unselected) manner, it results in reduced use of chemotherapy, but the total direct cost is increased.

•

A selective testing strategy could result in substantial cost savings.

Future perspectives of surgical treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is a heterogenous disease which requires updates on scientific research to offer patients the best possible and personalized treatment. Modern surgical treatment of breast cancer is recently been reviewed and it is clearly a field of continuous change and improvement. The change in treatment strategies is a challenge given that prognosis is already acceptable. The collaboration between specialties across different countries is needed to exchange experience and improve international guidelines. Multidisciplinary teams are mandatory for the patient to be provided with all treatment options and to make an informed decision on their treatment. The major trend in surgical treatment of breast cancer is de-escalating surgery and more focus on tumor biology. A “one-size-fits all” approach does not apply in treatment of breast cancer today. There are two major questions in future aspects of breast cancer treatment; Can surgery in the breast be omitted in patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy? And can some patients be spared axillary surgery? The timing of surgery is also debatable. These are major questions that need to be answered and through randomized controlled trials. This commentary gives an insight on thoughts and scientific research with focus on future aspects of breast cancer treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 70-gene signature compared with clinical assessment in breast cancer based on a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint®) to guide chemotherapy use in T1-3N0-1M0 breast cancer was demonstrated in the Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy (MINDACT) study. One thousand four ninety seven of 3356 (46.2%) enrolled patients with high clinical risk (in accordance with the modified Adjuvant! Online clinical-pathological assessment) had a low-risk 70-gene signature. Using patient-level data from the MINDACT trial, the cost-effectiveness of using the 70-gene signature to guide adjuvant chemotherapy selection for clinical high risk, estrogen receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) patients was analysed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hybrid decision tree-Markov model simulated treatment strategies in accordance with the 70-gene signature with clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone, over a 10-year time horizon. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), country-specific costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for six countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, UK and the US.

RESULTS

Treatment strategies guided by the 70-gene signature result in more QALYs compared with clinical assessment alone. Costs of the 70-gene signature strategy were lower in five of six countries. This led to dominance of the 70-gene signature in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and the US and to a cost-effective situation in the UK (ICER £22,910/QALY). Annual national cost savings were €4.2M (Belgium), €24.7M (France), €45.1M (Germany), €12.7M (Netherlands) and $244M (US). UK budget increase was £8.4M.

CONCLUSION

Using the 70-gene signature to safely guide chemotherapy de-escalation in clinical high risk patients with ER+/HER2- tumours is cost-effective compared with using clinical assessment alone. Long-term follow-up and outcomes from the MINDACT trial are necessary to address uncertainties in model inputs.

Overview of Breast Cancer and Implications of Overtreatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer: An Indian Perspective

The prevalence and mortality of breast cancer is increasing in Asian countries, including India. With advances in medical technology leading to better detection and characterization of the disease, it has been possible to classify breast cancer into various subtypes using markers, which helps predict the risk of distant recurrence, response to therapy, and prognosis using a combination of molecular and clinical parameters. Breast cancer and its therapy, mainly surgery, systemic therapy (anticancer chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy), and radiation therapy, are associated with significant adverse influences on physical and mental health, quality of life, and the economic status of the patient and her family. The fear of recurrence and its devastating effects often leads to overtreatment, with a toxic cost to the patient financially and physically in cases in which this is not required. This article discusses some aspects of a breast cancer diagnosis and its impact on the various facets of the life of the patient and her family. It further elucidates the role of prognostic factors, the currently available biomarkers and prognostic signatures, and the importance of ethnically validating biomarkers and prognostic signatures.

Harmonizing gene signatures to predict benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, including different subtypes with their own biology, prognosis, clinical characteristics and treatment. To date, traditional clinical and pathological determinants remain the main factors guiding treatment decision-making; however, the development of multigene assays improved the ability to predict the risk of recurrence in patients with early-stage breast cancer. These tools underwent an extensive independent validation and have already been partly incorporated into clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current article summarizes current evidence for the use of the different genomic assays in clinical practice, their characteristics and validation studies. A few studies comparing available genomic assays revealed that they provide different information with a modest correlation and that they are not interchangeable; other trials are currently ongoing in this setting.

SUMMARY

Variability across different gene signatures may be a challenge for the optimal management of the individual patient, hence each assay should be used for the clinical setting in which it has been validated.

Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for breast cancer survivors with treatment-induced menopausal symptoms

Purpose

Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), with and without therapist support, is effective in reducing treatment-induced menopausal symptoms and perceived impact of hot flushes and night sweats (HF/NS) in breast cancer survivors. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of both iCBT formats compared to a waiting list control group from the Dutch healthcare perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed with a 5-year time horizon. Costs and health outcomes were measured alongside a randomized controlled clinical trial and included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), overall levels of menopausal symptoms, and perceived impact of HF/NS. Uncertainty was examined using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, together with a scenario analysis incorporating a different perspective.

Results

iCBT was slightly more expensive than the waiting list control, but also more effective, resulting in incremental cost-utility ratios of €23,331/QALY and €11,277/QALY for the guided and self-managed formats, respectively. A significant reduction in overall levels of menopausal symptoms or perceived impact of HF/NS resulted in incremental costs between €1460 and €1525 for the guided and €500–€753 for the self-managed format. The estimated annual budget impact for the Netherlands was €192,990 for the guided and €74,592 for the self-managed format.

Conclusion

Based on the current trial data, the results indicate that both guided and self-managed iCBT are cost-effective with a willingness-to-pay threshold of well below €30,000/QALY. Additionally, self-managed iCBT is the most cost-effective strategy and has a lower impact on healthcare budgets.

Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Precision (stratified or personalised) medicine is underpinned by the premise that it is feasible to identify known heterogeneity using a specific test or algorithm in patient populations and to use this information to guide patient care to improve health and well-being. This study aimed to understand if, and how, previous economic evaluations of precision medicine had taken account of the impact of capacity constraints.

METHODS

A meta-review was conducted of published systematic reviews of economic evaluations of precision medicine (test-treat interventions) and individual studies included in these reviews. Due to the volume of studies identified, a sample of papers published from 2007 to 2015 was collated. A narrative analysis identified whether potential capacity constraints were discussed qualitatively in the studies and, if relevant, which quantitative methods were used to account for capacity constraints.

RESULTS

A total of 45 systematic reviews of economic evaluations of precision medicine were identified, from which 222 studies focusing on test-treat interventions, published between 2007 and 2015, were extracted. Of these studies, 33 (15%) qualitatively discussed the potential impact of capacity constraints, including budget constraints; quality of tests and the testing process; ease of use of tests in clinical practice; and decision uncertainty. Quantitative methods (nine studies) to account for capacity constraints included static methods such as capturing inefficiencies in trials or models and sensitivity analysis around model parameters; and dynamic methods, which allow the impact of capacity constraints on cost effectiveness to change over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the cost effectiveness of precision medicine is necessary, but not sufficient, evidence for its successful implementation. There are currently few examples of evaluations that have quantified the impact of capacity constraints, which suggests an area of focus for future research.

Biomarkers in breast cancer: A consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology

This consensus statement revises and updates the recommendations for biomarkers use in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, and is a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology. This expert group recommends determining in all cases of breast cancer the histologic grade and the alpha-estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, Ki-67 and HER2 status, in order to assist prognosis and establish therapeutic options, including hormone therapy, chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapy. One of the four available genetic prognostic platforms (MammaPrint^®, Oncotype DX^®, Prosigna^® or EndoPredict^®) may be used in node-negative ER-positive patients to establish a prognostic category and decide with the patient whether adjuvant treatment may be limited to hormonal therapy. Newer technologies including next-generation sequencing, liquid biopsy, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes or PD-1 determination are at this point investigational.

[Consensus statement on biomarkers in breast cancer by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology]

This consensus statement is a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM). It revises and updates the recommendations for the use of biomarkers in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. The group of experts recommends that, in all cases of breast cancer, the histologic grade and the alpha-estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, Ki-67 and HER2 status should be determined, in order to assist prognosis and establish therapeutic options, including hormone therapy, chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapy. One of the four available genetic prognostic platforms (MammaPrint^®, Oncotype DX^®, Prosigna^® or EndoPredict^®) may be used in node-negative ER-positive patients to establish a prognostic category and decide, together with the patient, whether adjuvant treatment be limited to hormonal therapy. Newer technologies, including next generation sequencing, liquid biopsy, tumour infiltrating lymphocytes or PD-1 determination, are still investigational.

Association of 70-Gene Signature Assay Findings With Physicians' Treatment Guidance for Patients With Early Breast Cancer Classified as Intermediate Risk by the 21-Gene Assay

Importance

Among patients who undergo the 21-gene assay (21-GA), 39% to 67% receive an intermediate risk result and may receive ambiguous treatment guidance. The 70-gene signature assay (70-GS) may be associated with physicians' treatment decisions in this population with early breast cancer.

Objective

To determine whether 70-GS findings are associated with physicians' decisions about adjuvant treatment and confidence in their recommendations and to evaluate the dichotomous (high- vs low-risk) and continuous distribution of 70-GS indices among this group of patients with intermediate risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Prospective Study of MammaPrint in Breast Cancer Patients With an Intermediate Recurrence Score (PROMIS trial) was an impact study conducted from May 20, 2012, through December 31, 2015, that enrolled 840 patients with early-stage breast cancer and a 21-gene assay recurrence score of 18 to 30. Patients were treated in 58 US institutions.

Interventions

The 70-GS result was given to physicians before adjuvant treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in physician treatment decision before vs after receiving the 70-GS result. With a treatment change of greater than 20%, the odds ratio (OR) was applied.

Results

Among the 840 patients who underwent 70-GS classification (mean age, 59 years; range, 27-93 years), 374 (44.5%) had a low-risk and 466 (55.5%) had a high-risk result. The distribution of 70-GS indices did not correlate with recurrence score within the 21-GA intermediate range, with 70-GS low- and high-risk patients observed at every recurrence score. A significant change in adjuvant treatment was associated with receiving the 70-GS classifications with an OR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; McNemar test, P < .001) for all patients. Among the low-risk patients, 108 of 374 (28.9%) had chemotherapy removed from their treatment recommendation; among the high-risk patients, 171 of 466 (36.7%) had chemotherapy added. Results of the 70-GS were associated with the physician's adjuvant treatment recommendation; 409 high-risk patients (87.8%) were recommended to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and 339 low-risk patients (90.6%) were recommended no chemotherapy. Physicians reported having greater confidence in their treatment recommendation in 660 cases (78.6%) based on 70-GS results.

Conclusions and Relevance

The 70-GS provides clinically actionable information regarding patients classified as intermediate risk by the 21-GA and was associated with a change in treatment decision in 282 of these patients (33.6%). Chemotherapy was added or withheld by the treating physician based on the results of the 70-GS test. Physicians reported more confidence with their treatment recommendation after receiving 70-GS results.

Systematic review of the clinical and economic value of gene expression profiles for invasive early breast cancer available in Europe

Gene expression profiles with prognostic capacities have shown good performance in multiple clinical trials. However, with multiple assays available and numerous types of validation studies performed, the added value for daily clinical practice is still unclear. In Europe, the MammaPrint, OncotypeDX, PAM50/Prosigna and Endopredict assays are commercially available. In this systematic review, we aim to assess these assays on four important criteria: Assay development and methodology, clinical validation, clinical utility and economic value. We performed a literature search covering PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane, for studies related to one or more of the four selected assays. We identified 147 papers for inclusion in this review. MammaPrint and OncotypeDX both have evidence available, including level IA clinical trial results for both assays. Both assays provide prognostic information. Predictive value has only been shown for OncotypeDX. In the clinical utility studies, a higher reduction in chemotherapy was achieved by OncotypeDX, although the number of available studies differ considerably between tests. On average, economic evaluations estimate that genomic testing results in a moderate increase in total costs, but that these costs are acceptable in relation to the expected improved patient outcome. PAM50/prosigna and EndoPredict showed comparable prognostic capacities, but with less economical and clinical utility studies. Furthermore, for these assays no level IA trial data are available yet. In summary, all assays have shown excellent prognostic capacities. The differences in the quantity and quality of evidence are discussed. Future studies shall focus on the selection of appropriate subgroups for testing and long-term outcome of validation trials, in order to determine the place of these assays in daily clinical practice.

Gene Expression Profiling in Breast Cancer and Its Effect on Therapy Selection in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. The purpose of adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer is to provide maximum benefit with minimum side effects and not to under-treat or over-treat. The clinical progresses of patients with the same clinical and pathological characteristics who are given similar treatments may show major differences. This fact indicates that the prognostic and predictive factors that we have used until recent years for therapy selection are not really sufficient, we need new markers, every disease and every individual are unique and that treatment should be individualized. The gene expression profiling, which has come into clinical use in recent years, is beneficial in therapy selection for luminal breast cancer cases. A differentiation can be made among patients for whom only endocrine treatment would be adequate and those who should also receive chemotherapy in addition to endocrine treatment. Several new gene expression analysis studies targeted at gaining the ability to determine drug selection in chemotherapy, endocrine treatment and neo-adjuvant therapy are also currently ongoing. The staging system for new breast cancer that is to be published in the year 2018 also includes gene expression analyses within the prognostic panel and the stage changes depending on the result. The statement 'Treat the patient, not the disease.' is becoming increasingly entrenched in our clinical practice. This article briefly summarizes the gene expression profiles, which are validated and used in the selection of therapy for early-stage breast cancer.

Do online prognostication tools represent a valid alternative to genomic profiling in the context of adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer? A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy has been based on clinical and pathological features. However, such decisions are seldom consistent. Web-based predictive models have been developed using data from cancer registries to help determine the need for adjuvant therapy. More recently, with the recognition of the heterogenous nature of breast cancer, genomic assays have been developed to aid in the therapeutic decision-making.

METHODS

We have carried out a comprehensive literature review regarding online prognostication tools and genomic assays to assess whether online tools could be used as valid alternatives to genomic profiling in decision-making regarding adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer has been recently recognized as a heterogenous disease based on variations in molecular characteristics. Online tools are valuable in guiding adjuvant treatment, especially in resource constrained countries. However, in the era of personalized therapy, molecular profiling appears to be superior in predicting clinical outcome and guiding therapy.

Clinical utility of gene-expression signatures in early stage breast cancer

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, with different subtypes having a distinct biological, molecular, and clinical course. Assessments of standard clinical and pathological features have traditionally been used to determine the use of adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with early stage breast cancer; however, the ability to identify those who will benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy remains a challenge, leading to the overtreatment of some patients. Advances in molecular medicine have substantially improved the accuracy of gene-expression profiling of breast tumours, resulting in improvements in the ability to predict a patient's risk of breast cancer recurrence and likely response to endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy. These genomic assays, several of which are commercially available, have aided physicians in tailoring treatment decisions for patients at the individual level. Herein, we describe the available data on the clinical validity of the most widely available assays in patients with early stage breast cancer, with a focus on the development, validation, and clinical application of these assays, in addition to the anticipated outcomes of ongoing prospective trials. We also review data from comparative studies of these assays and from cost-effectiveness analyses relating to their clinical use.

Towards decision-making using individualized risk estimates for personalized medicine: A systematic review of genomic classifiers of solid tumors

Recent advances in the understanding of the genetic underpinnings of cancer offer the promise to customize cancer treatments to the individual through the use of genomic classifiers (GCs). At present, routine clinical utilization of GCs is uncommon and their current scope and status, in a broad sense, are unknown. As part of a registered review (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014013371), we systematically reviewed the literature evaluating the utility of commercially available GCs by searching Ovid Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL on September 2, 2014. We excluded articles involving pediatric malignancies, non-solid or non-invasive cancers, hereditary risk of cancer, non-validated GCs, and GCs involving fewer than 3 biomarkers. A total of 3,625 studies were screened, but only 37 met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies evaluated outcomes and clinical utility of GCs through clinical trials, and the remainder through the use of mathematical models. Most studies (29 of 37) were specific to hormone-receptor positive breast cancer, whereas only 4 studies evaluated GCs in non-breast cancer (prostate, colon, and lung cancers). GCs have spurred excitement across disciplines in recent decades. While there are several GCs that have been validated, the general quality of the data are weak. Further research, including prospective validation is needed, particularly in the non-breast cancer GCs.

[Validation and clinical application of MammaPrint® in patients with breast cancer]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, advances in molecular biology have resulted in innovations in breast cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. The development of genomics has revolutionized our understanding of this disease. MammaPrint^® was developed as a diagnostic tool to predict risk of breast cancer recurrence using the expression of 70 genes altering the clinicopathologic paradigm of selection of patients for adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A study of stage i-ii breast cancer patients on whom the MammaPrint^® genomic assay was performed.

RESULTS

The use of the MammaPrint^® assay was a decisive factor for the recommendation of adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy and/or hormone therapy in patients with high risk for relapse. In our group, the patients with low-risk have not presented local or systemic recurrences DISCUSSION: The determination of the genetic characteristics and its alterations in breast cancer, is fundamentally important for a better identification of risk, as well as a better selection of cancer therapy.

CONCLUSION

MammaPrint^® is an effective study to determine risk of recurrence of in early stage breast cancer.

Innovations that reach the patient: early health technology assessment and improving the chances of coverage and implementation

With growing concerns for the sustainability of the financial burden that health care-and especially cancer services-poses on the national budgets, the role of health economic analyses in coverage decisions is likely to grow. One of the strategies for the biomedical research field-also in oncology research-to foster coverage and health system implementation, is to anticipate this new role and to involve health technology assessment techniques earlier in various stages of translational research. In this article, we elaborate on the early involvement of health technology assessment in translational research and the concept of Coverage with Evidence Development in The Netherlands Cancer Institute and give two case examples that are currently ongoing: (1) tumour infiltrating lymphocytes therapy for metastatic melanoma; and (2) high-dose chemotherapy for BRCA1-like subgroup in triple-negative breast cancer. We conclude with recommendations for institutional policy.

Cost-effectiveness and resource use of implementing MRI-guided NACT in ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancers in The Netherlands

Background

Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RG-NACT) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is effective in treating oestrogen receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (ER-positive/HER2-negative) breast cancer. We estimated the expected cost-effectiveness and resources required for its implementation compared to conventional-NACT.

Methods

A Markov model compared costs, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and costs/QALY of RG-NACT vs. conventional-NACT, from a hospital perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Health services required for and health outcomes of implementation were estimated via resource modelling analysis, considering a current (4 %) and a full (100 %) implementation scenario.

Results

RG-NACT was expected to be more effective and less costly than conventional NACT in both implementation scenarios, with 94 % (current) and 95 % (full) certainty, at a willingness to pay threshold of €20.000/QALY. Fully implementing RG-NACT in the Dutch target population of 6306 patients requires additional 5335 MRI examinations and an (absolute) increase in the number of MRI technologists, by 3.6 fte (full-time equivalent), and of breast radiologists, by 0.4 fte. On the other hand, it prevents 9 additional relapses, 143 cancer deaths, 23 congestive heart failure events and 2 myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukaemia events.

Conclusion

Considering cost-effectiveness, RG-NACT is expected to dominate conventional-NACT. While personnel capacity is likely to be sufficient for a full implementation scenario, MRI utilization needs to be intensified.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Response-Guided Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hormone Positive Breast Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Guiding response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (guided-NACT) allows for an adaptative treatment approach likely to improve breast cancer survival. In this study, our primary aim is to explore the expected cost-effectiveness of guided-NACT using as a case study the first randomized controlled trial that demonstrated effectiveness (GeparTrio trial).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As effectiveness was shown in hormone-receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancers (EBC), our decision model compared the health-economic outcomes of treating a cohort of such women with guided-NACT to conventional-NACT using clinical input data from the GeparTrio trial. The expected cost-effectiveness and the uncertainty around this estimate were estimated via probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), from a Dutch societal perspective over a 5-year time-horizon.

RESULTS

Our exploratory CEA predicted that guided-NACT as proposed by the GeparTrio, costs additional €110, but results in 0.014 QALYs gained per patient. This scenario of guided-NACT was considered cost-effective at any willingness to pay per additional QALY. At the prevailing Dutch willingness to pay threshold (€80.000/QALY) cost-effectiveness was expected with 78% certainty.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory CEA indicated that guided-NACT (as proposed by the GeparTrio trial) is likely cost-effective in treating HR+ EBC women. While prospective validation of the GeparTrio findings is advisable from a clinical perspective, early CEAs can be used to prioritize further research from a broader health economic perspective, by identifying which parameters contribute most to current decision uncertainty. Furthermore, their use can be extended to explore the expected cost-effectiveness of alternative guided-NACT scenarios that combine the use of promising imaging techniques together with personalized treatments.

The importance of test accuracy in economic evaluations of companion diagnostics

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of companion diagnostics often fail to include the impact that tests have on the overall economic value of test-drug combinations. 

METHODS

To illustrate the importance of test accuracy on the cost-effectiveness of companion diagnostics by means of examples. Data were extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

The accuracy of a test and in particularly its specificity, is often more influential on the overall cost-effectiveness results than the price of the test. Specificity becomes more crucial when prevalence of the biomarker is low. Multiple, simultaneous testing faces specific challenges regarding its overall specificity.

CONCLUSION

This article opens a discussion on some fundamental points linked to economic evaluations of test-therapy combinations.

Pharmacogenetics of cancer therapy: breakthroughs from beyond?

‘Pharmacogenetics or Pharmacogenomics’ (PG) is one of the most practiced cancer therapeutic strategies, tailored for individualized patients. Despite its popularity and rapid advancements in the field, many obstacles for cancer therapy PG still need to be overcome. By borrowing scientific systems from other disciplines such as cancer diagnosis, and therapeutic information from the diversity of tumor origins, categories and stages, cancer therapy PG may hopefully be improved. Furthermore, to quickly acquire genetic and pathologic information and seek therapeutic interventions, possible breakthroughs may come from beyond – changing the cancer therapeutic landscapes. The next generations of PG protocols and hospital routines for searching deadly cancer pathogenic pathways versus drug-targeting predictions are of great clinical significance for the future. Yet, progress of cancer therapy PG is entering into a bottleneck stage owing to simple model of relevant techniques and routines. Promoting or even innovating present PG modular is very necessary. This perspective highlights this issue by introducing new initiatives and ideas.

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

PURPOSE

This overview systematically evaluates the clinical utility of using Oncotype DX and MammaPrint gene-expression profiling tests to direct treatment decisions in women with breast cancer. The findings are intended to inform an updated recommendation from the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group.

METHODS

Evidence reported in systematic reviews evaluating the clinical utility of Oncotype DX and MammaPrint, as well as the ability to predict treatment outcomes, change in treatment decisions, and cost-effectiveness, was qualitatively synthesized.

RESULTS

Five systematic reviews found no direct evidence of clinical utility for either test. Indirect evidence showed Oncotype DX was able to predict treatment effects of adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas no evidence of predictive value was found for MammaPrint. Both tests influenced a change in treatment recommendations in 21 to 74% of participants. The cost-effectiveness of Oncotype DX varied with the alternative compared. For MammaPrint, lack of evidence of the predictive value led to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

No studies were identified that provided direct evidence that using gene-expression profiling tests to direct treatment decisions improved outcomes in women with breast cancer. Three ongoing studies may provide direct evidence for determining the clinical utility of gene-expression profiling testing.

Cost Effectiveness of Molecular Profiling for Adjuvant Decision Making in Patients With Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose

To conduct an economic evaluation of the 70-gene signature used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decision making both in patients with node-negative breast cancer (NNBC) and in the subgroup of estrogen receptor (ER) –positive patients.

Patients and Methods

We used a mixed approach combining patient-level data from a multicenter validation study of the 70-gene signature (untreated patients) and secondary sources for chemotherapy efficacy, unit costs, and utility values. Three strategies on which to base the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy were compared: the 70-gene signature, Adjuvant! Online, and chemotherapy in all patients. In the base-case analysis, costs from the French National Insurance Scheme, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed for the three strategies over a 10-year period. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves using the net monetary benefit were computed, combining bootstrap and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

The mean differences in LYs and QALYs were similar between the three strategies. The 70-gene signature strategy was associated with a higher cost, with a mean difference of €2,037 (range, €1,472 to €2,515) compared with Adjuvant! Online and of €657 (95% CI, −€642 to €3,130) compared with systematic chemotherapy. For a €50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of being the most cost-effective strategy was 92% (76% in ER-positive patients) for the Adjuvant! Online strategy, 6% (4% in ER-positive patients) for the systematic chemotherapy strategy, and 2% (20% in ER-positive patients) for the 70-gene strategy.

Conclusion

Optimizing adjuvant chemotherapy decision making based on the 70-gene signature is unlikely to be cost effective in patients with NNBC.

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy and physical exercise for alleviating treatment-induced menopausal symptoms in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Many breast cancer patients experience (severe) menopausal symptoms after an early onset of menopause caused by cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and physical exercise (PE), compared to a waiting list control group (WLC).

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare system perspective, using a Markov model. Effectiveness data came from a recent randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of CBT and PE. Cost data were obtained from relevant Dutch sources. Outcome measures were incremental treatment costs (ITCs) per patient with a clinically relevant improvement on a measure of endocrine symptoms, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire (FACT-ES), and on a measure of hot flushes, the Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS), and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained over a 5-year time period.

RESULTS

ITCs for achieving a clinically relevant decline on the FACT-ES for one patient were €1,051 for CBT and €1,315 for PE, compared to the WLC. The corresponding value for the HFRS was €1,067 for CBT, while PE was not more effective than the WLC. Incremental cost-utility ratios were €22,502/QALY for CBT and €28,078/QALY for PE.

CONCLUSION

CBT is likely the most cost-effective strategy for alleviating treatment-induced menopausal symptoms in this population, followed by PE. The outcomes are sensitive to a reduction of the assumed duration of the treatment effect from 5 to 3 and 1.5 years.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patients can be prescribed CBT or, based on individual preferences, PE.

The multigene signature MammaPrint impacts on multidisciplinary team decisions in ER+, HER2- early breast cancer

Background:

Validated multigene signatures (MGS) provide additional prognostic information when evaluating clinical features of ER⁺, HER2⁻ early breast cancer. We have studied the quantitative and qualitative impact of MGS on multidisciplinary team (MDT) recommendations.

Methods:

We prospectively recruited 75 ER⁺, HER2⁻ breast cancer patients. Inclusion was based on biopsy assessment of grade, hormone receptor status, HER2, clinical tumour and nodal status. A fresh tissue sample was sent for MammaPrint (MP), TargetPrint analysis at surgery. Clinical risk was decided by the MDT in the absence of MP results and repeated following the collection of MP results. Decision changes were recorded and a health technology assessment was undertaken to compare cost effectiveness.

Results:

The majority of patients were assigned low to intermediate clinical risk by the MDT. According to MP, 76% were low risk. A very high correlation between local IHC and the TargetPrint assessment was shown. In over a third of patients, discordance between clinical and molecular risk was observed. Decision changes were recorded in half of these cases (18.6%) and resulted in two out of three patients not requiring chemotherapy. The use of MP was also found to be more cost effective.

Conclusions:

The multigene signature MP revealed clinical and molecular risk discordance in a third of patients. The impact of this on MDT recommendations was most profound in cases where few clinical risk factors were observed and enabled some women to forgo chemotherapy. The use of MGS is unlikely to have an impact in either clinically low-risk women or in patients with more than one relative indication for chemotherapy.

Far beyond the usual biomarkers in breast cancer: a review

Research investigating biomarkers for early detection, prognosis and the prediction of treatment responses in breast cancer is rapidly expanding. However, no validated biomarker currently exists for use in routine clinical practice, and breast cancer detection and management remains dependent on invasive procedures. Histological examination remains the standard for diagnosis, whereas immunohistochemical and genetic tests are utilized for treatment decisions and prognosis determinations. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of literature published in PubMed on breast cancer biomarkers between 2009 and 2013. The keywords that were used together were breast cancer, biomarkers, diagnosis, prognosis and drug response. The cited references of the manuscripts included in this review were also screened. We have comprehensively summarized the performance of several biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis and predicted drug responses of breast cancer. Finally, we have identified 15 biomarkers that have demonstrated promise in initial studies and several miRNAs. At this point, such biomarkers must be rigorously validated in the clinical setting to be translated into clinically useful tests for the diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of drug responses of breast cancer.

The quality of economic studies of cancer pharmacogenomics: a quantitative appraisal of the evidence

This study evaluated the quality of health economic studies of cancer pharmacogenomics (PGx). A systematic search of the literature for economic studies of PGx was conducted in four common cancers. Evaluation of study quality was carried out using the quality of health economic studies instrument. Thirty-nine articles met our eligibility criteria and were selected and accepted for further statistical analyses. The majority of articles (85%) were studies focusing on breast cancer. The overall weighted mean quality score was 85.10, with a range from 21 to 100. Eighty-seven percent of articles were categorized as good quality, whereas some 10 and 3% were categorized as moderate and poor quality, respectively. The quality of economic studies of cancer PGx is generally good but varied widely. We identified several attributes that are predictive of quality. Our findings may be useful for oncologists, health economists and decision makers interested in evaluating studies involving PGx.

Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Individualized medicine (IM) is a rapidly evolving field that is associated with both visions of more effective care at lower costs and fears of highly priced, low-value interventions. It is unclear which view is supported by the current evidence.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to systematically review the health economic evidence related to IM and to derive general statements on its cost-effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of MEDLINE database for English- and German-language studies was conducted.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHOD

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies for technologies meeting the MEDLINE medical subject headings (MeSH) definition of IM (genetically targeted interventions) were reviewed. This was followed by a standardized extraction of general study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

Most of the 84 studies included in the synthesis were from the USA (n = 43, 51 %), cost-utility studies (n = 66, 79 %), and published since 2005 (n = 60, 71 %). The results ranged from dominant to dominated. The median value (cost-utility studies) was calculated to be rounded $US22,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (adjusted to $US, year 2008 values), which is equal to the rounded median cost-effectiveness in the peer-reviewed English-language literature according to a recent review. Many studies reported more than one strategy of IM with highly varying cost-effectiveness ratios. Generally, results differed according to test type, and tests for disease prognosis or screening appeared to be more favorable than tests to stratify patients by response or by risk of adverse effects. However, these results were not significant.

LIMITATIONS

Different definitions of IM could have been used. Quality assessment of the studies was restricted to analyzing transparency.

CONCLUSIONS

IM neither seems to display superior cost-effectiveness than other types of medical interventions nor to be economically inferior. Instead, rather than 'whether' healthcare was individualized, the question of 'how' it was individualized was of economic relevance.

Performance characteristics of the MammaPrint® breast cancer diagnostic gene signature

BACKGROUND

The analytical performance of multigene signatures depends on many parameters, including precision, repeatability, reproducibility and intratumor heterogeneity. Indicators such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value are typically used to define the clinical performance of a diagnostic test.

AIM

Here we study these performance characteristics of the MammaPrint^® (Agendia NV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 70-gene signature using the US FDA-recommended guidelines, as well as predetermined acceptance criteria.

RESULTS

The clinical and analytical performance characteristics show that MammaPrint is a robust, reproducible, precise test, with a maximum variation of 5% in multiple samplings of the same tissue.

CONCLUSION

MammaPrint is a reliable indicator of distant metastasis in early-stage breast cancer patients of all ages and is well suited for personalized medical care.

Molecular and protein markers for clinical decision making in breast cancer: today and tomorrow

In early breast cancer (eBC), established clinicopathological factors are not sufficient for clinical decision making particularly regarding adjuvant chemotherapy since substantial over- or undertreatment may occur. Thus, novel protein- and molecular markers have been put forward as decision aids. Since these potential prognosis and/or predictive tests differ substantially regarding their methodology, analytical and clinical validation, this review attempts to summarize the essential facts for clinicians. This review focuses on those markers which are the most advanced so far in their development towards routine clinical application, i.e. two protein markers (i.e. uPA/PAI-1 and IHC4) and six molecular multigene tests (i.e. Mammaprint®, Oncotype DX®, PAM50, Endopredict®, the 97-gene genomic grade, and 76 gene Rotterdam signatures). Next to methodological aspects, we summarized the clinical evidences, in particular the main prospective clinical trials which have already been fully recruited (i.e. MINDACT, TAILORx, WSG PLAN B) or are still ongoing (i.e. RxPONDER/SWOG S1007, WSG-ADAPT). Last but not least, this review points out the key elements for clinicians to select one test among the wide panel of proposed assays, for a specific population of patients in term of level of evidence, analytical and clinical validity as well as cost effectiveness.

Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of genomic profiling in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature (70-GS) (MammaPrint®) has earlier been estimated using retrospective validation data. Based on the prospective 5-year survival data of the microarRAy-prognoSTics-in-breast-cancER (RASTER) study, the aim here was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness reflecting the actual use in clinical practice, including reality-based compliance rates.

METHODS

Costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs)) were calculated in node-negative (N-) patients included in the RASTER study (n=427). Sensitivity and specificity of the 70-gene and Adjuvant! Online (AO) were based on 5-year distant-disease-free survival (DDFS). Subgroup analyses were performed for two groups for whom benefit of the 70-gene had earlier been reported: (1) ductal, oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+), tumour diameter 10-30 mm, grade II, age 40-70; (2) ductal, oestrogen receptor-positive, tumour diameter 5-30 mm, grade II/III and age 40-70.

RESULTS

Based on 5-year survival data, the cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus AO was prospectively confirmed. The total health care costs per patient were €26,786 for the 70-gene and €29,187 for AO. The quality adjusted life years yielded 12.49 and 11.88, respectively. The subgroups retrieved slightly higher life gains and higher costs, but all resulted finally in a favourable position for the 70-gene signature.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the 70-gene signature, as judged appropriate by doctors and patients and supported by a low risk 70-gene signature as an oncological safe choice, was also found to be cost-effective.

Value of research and value of development in early assessments of new medical technologies

OBJECTIVES

In early stages of development of new medical technologies, there are conceptually separate but related societal decisions to be made concerning adoption, further development (i.e., technical improvement), and research (i.e., clinical trials) of new technologies. This article presents a framework to simultaneously support these three decisions from a societal perspective. The framework is applied to the 70-gene signature, a gene-expression profile for breast cancer, deciding which patients should receive adjuvant systemic therapy after surgery. The "original" signature performed on fresh frozen tissue (70G-FFT) could be further developed to a paraffin-based signature (70G-PAR) to reduce test failures.

METHODS

A Markov decision model comparing the "current" guideline Adjuvant Online (AO), 70G-FFT, and 70G-PAR was used to simulate 20-year costs and outcomes in a hypothetical cohort in The Netherlands. The 70G-PAR strategy was based on projected data from a comparable technology. Incremental net monetary benefits were calculated to support the adoption decision. Expected net benefit of development for the population and expected net benefit of sampling were calculated to support the development and research decision.

RESULTS

The 70G-PAR had the highest net monetary benefit, followed by the 70G-FFT. The population expected net benefit of development amounted to €91 million over 20 years (assuming €250 development costs per patient receiving the test). The expected net benefit of sampling amounted to €61 million for the optimal trial (n = 4000).

CONCLUSIONS

We presented a framework to simultaneously support adoption, development, and research decisions in early stages of medical technology development. In this case, the results indicate that there is value in both further development of 70G-FFT into 70G-PAR and further research.

Multigene assays and molecular markers in breast cancer: systematic review of health economic analyses

Breast cancer is the most common female cancer and is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden. Multigene assays and molecular markers represent an opportunity to direct chemotherapy only to patients likely to have significant benefit. This systematic review examines published health economic analyses to assess the support for adjuvant therapy decision making. Literature searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and congress databases were carried out to identify economic evaluations of multigene assays and molecular markers published between 2002 and 2012. After screening and data extraction, study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. The review identified 29 publications that reported evaluations of two assays: Oncotype DX^® and MammaPrint. Studies of both tests provided evidence that their routine use was cost saving or cost-effective versus conventional approaches. Benefits were driven by optimal allocation of adjuvant chemotherapy and reduction in chemotherapy utilization. Findings were sensitive to variation in the frequency of chemotherapy prescription, chemotherapy costs, and patients’ risk profiles. Evidence suggests that multigene assays are likely cost saving or cost-effective relative to current approaches to adjuvant therapy. They should benefit decision making in early-stage breast cancer in a variety of settings worldwide.