The impact of the 21-gene assay on adjuvant treatment decisions in oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer: a prospective study

Real-world use of multigene signatures in early breast cancer: differences to clinical trials

PURPOSE

In Italy, Lombardy was the first region to reimburse multigene assays (MGAs) for patients otherwise candidates for chemotherapy. This is a real-world experience of MGAs usage in six referral cancer centers in Lombardy.

METHODS

Among MGAs, Oncotype DX (RS) was used in 97% of cases. Consecutive patients tested with Oncotype DX from July 2020 to July 2022 were selected. The distribution of clinicopathologic features by RS groups (low RS: 0-25, high RS: 26-100) was assessed using chi-square and compared with those of the TAILORx and RxPONDER trials.

RESULTS

Out of 1,098 patients identified, 73% had low RS. Grade and Ki67 were associated with RS (p < 0.001). In patients with both G3 and Ki67 > 30%, 39% had low RS, while in patients with both G1 and Ki67 < 20%, 7% had high RS. The proportion of low RS in node-positive patients was similar to that in RxPONDER (82% vs 83%), while node-negative patients with low RS were significantly less than in TAILORx (66% vs 86%, p < 0.001). The distribution of Grade was different from registration trials, with more G3 and fewer G1 (38% and 3%) than in TAILORx (18% and 27%) and RxPONDER (10% and 24%) (p < 0.001). Patients ≤ 50 years were overrepresented in this series (41%) than in TAILORx and RxPONDER (31% and 24%, respectively) (p < 0.001) and, among them, 42% were node positive.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world series, Oncotype DX was the test almost exclusively used. Despite reimbursement being linked to pre-test chemotherapy recommendation, almost 3/4 patients resulted in the low-RS group. The significant proportion of node-positive patients ≤ 50 years tested indicates that oncologists considered Oncotype DX informative also in this population.

Oncotype DX results increase concordance in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for early-stage breast cancer

Adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for ER+/HER2- early-stage breast cancers (eBC) involve integrating prognostic and predictive information which rely on physician judgment; this can lead to discordant recommendations. In this study we aim to evaluate whether Oncotype DX improves confidence and agreement among oncologists in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations. We randomly select 30 patients with ER+/HER2- eBC and recurrence score (RS) available from an institutional database. We ask 16 breast oncologists with varying years of clinical practice in Italy and the US to provide recommendation for the addition of chemotherapy to endocrine therapy and their degree of confidence in the recommendation twice; first, based on clinicopathologic features only (pre-RS), and then with RS result (post-RS). Pre-RS, the average rate of chemotherapy recommendation is 50.8% and is higher among junior (62% vs 44%; p < 0.001), but similar by country. Oncologists are uncertain in 39% of cases and recommendations are discordant in 27% of cases (interobserver agreement K 0.47). Post-RS, 30% of physicians change recommendation, uncertainty in recommendation decreases to 5.6%, and discordance decreases to 7% (interobserver agreement K 0.85). Interpretation of clinicopathologic features alone to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy results in 1 out of 4 discordant recommendations and relatively high physician uncertainty. Oncotype DX results decrease discordancy to 1 out of 15, and reduce physician uncertainty. Genomic assay results reduce subjectivity in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for ER +/HER2- eBC.

Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in cancer prognostic research in recent years. These studies aim to evaluate the impact of a genomic test on decision-making and appear to be a new form of evidence of clinical utility. The objectives of this review were to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care and categorize the types of clinical utility outcomes reported.

METHODS

We conducted a search of four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to June 2022. Empirical studies that reported a "decision impact" assessment of a genomic assay on treatment decisions or recommendations for cancer patients were included. We followed scoping review methodology and adapted the Fryback and Thornbury Model to collect and analyze data on clinical utility. The database searches identified 1803 unique articles for title/abstract screening; 269 articles moved to full-text review.

RESULTS

87 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the last 12 years with the majority for breast cancer (72%); followed by other cancers (28%) (lung, prostate, colon). Studies reported on the impact of 19 different proprietary (18) and generic (1) assays. Across all four levels of clinical utility, outcomes were reported for 22 discrete measures, including the impact on provider/team decision-making (100%), provider confidence (31%); change in treatment received (46%); patient psychological impacts (17%); and costing or savings impacts (21%). Based on the data synthesis, we created a comprehensive table of outcomes reported for clinical utility.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review is a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of decision impact studies and their influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies in cancer care. The results imply that DIS are positioned to provide evidence of clinical utility and impact clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making in cancer care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr.

The Rochester Modified Magee Algorithm (RoMMa): An Outcomes Based Strategy for Clinical Risk-Assessment and Risk-Stratification in ER Positive, HER2 Negative Breast Cancer Patients Being Considered for Oncotype DX® Testing

INTRODUCTION

Multigene genomic profiling has become the standard of care in the clinical risk-assessment and risk-stratification of ER⁺, HER2^- breast cancer (BC) patients, with Oncotype DX^® (ODX) emerging as the genomic profile test with the most support from the international community. The current state of the health care economy demands that cost-efficiency and access to testing must be considered when evaluating the clinical utility of multigene profile tests such as ODX. Several studies have suggested that certain lower risk patients can be identified more cost-efficiently than simply reflexing all ER⁺, HER2^- BC patients to ODX testing. The Magee equations^TM use standard histopathologic data in a set of multivariable models to estimate the ODX recurrence score. Our group published the first outcome data in 2019 on the Magee equations^TM, using a modification of the Magee equations^TM combined with an algorithmic approach-the Rochester Modified Magee algorithm (RoMMa). There has since been limited published outcome data on the Magee equations^TM. We present additional outcome data, with considerations of the TAILORx risk-stratification recommendations.

METHODS

355 patients with an ODX recurrence score, and at least five years of follow-up or a BC recurrence were included in the study. All patients received either Tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. None of the patients received adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence in similar risk categories (very low risk, low risk, and high risk) between the average Modified Magee score and ODX recurrence score with the chi-square test of independence (p > 0.05) or log-rank test (p > 0.05). Using the RoMMa, we estimate that at least 17% of individuals can safely avoid ODX testing.

CONCLUSION

Our study further reinforces that BC patients can be confidently stratified into lower and higher-risk recurrence groups using the Magee equations^TM. The RoMMa can be helpful in the initial clinical risk-assessment and risk-stratification of BC patients, providing increased opportunities for cost savings in the health care system, and for clinical risk-assessment and risk-stratification in less-developed geographies where multigene testing might not be available.

Multigene signatures for early breast cancer in clinical practice: A report of the Lombardy genomic assays for breast cancer working group

The increasing understanding of breast cancer biology has provided the basis for the development of multigene signatures aimed to improve the capability of clinicians to assess patients' prognostication and risk stratification. Incorporating these tools in clinical practice has profoundly impacted on the decision-making process for the adjuvant therapy of patients with ER+/HER2- early breast cancer and the results from prospective adjuvant trials have strengthened the clinical utility of multigene signatures in this setting. In July 2019, Lombardy was the first Region in Italy to reimburse genomic testing for patients with ER+/HER2- early breast cancer. Three years later, a group of investigators from six referral Cancer Centers in Lombardy convened to debate the use of multigene signatures in clinical practice and share their own experience with the tests after reimbursement. Here, we reviewed relevant data on the role of multigene signatures in tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with ER+/HER2- early breast cancer and discussed about the optimal use of these assays in current clinical practice. As the treatment landscape of early breast cancer evolves and novel questions about the possible additional applications of multigene assays arise, we also provide our viewpoint on the potential implementation of the assays in the evolving scenario ER+/HER2- early breast cancer treatment.

The Oncotype DX Recurrence Score's Impact on the Management of Oestrogen-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative, Low-Burden Axillary Status Breast Cancer (REHAB Study): Results of a Single Centre

Background

The Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (ODX-RS) is increasingly utilized in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, low-burden axillary disease early operable breast cancer. It has been demonstrated to predict the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy, hence supporting individualized decisions on adjuvant therapy.

Aim

To investigate the application of ODX-RS as an adjuvant treatment decision tool in breast cancer operated in our unit.

Methods

A total of 107 eligible patients who were operated on between 2017 and 2021 in Basildon University Hospital, UK were enrolled in this study. In this retrospective study, the clinical data, including patient’s age, tumour size, ER status, HER2 status, Ki67 proliferative index (Ki67-PI), nodal status, tumour grade, and ODX-RS, were collected. In the study design, the oncologist had the opportunity to assess the need for adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, low-burden axillary lymph node disease, early breast cancer by using tumour characteristics and the PREDICT tool without knowing the ODX-RS results. The clinician's decision was matched against the breast multidisciplinary team's recommendations after ODX-RS utilisation, and the results were explored.

Results

The median ODX-RS of cohort tumours was 18 in the age group > 50 years, with ODX-RS ≥ 26 found in 18% of the group (n = 12). In the age group ≤ 50 years, 17% (n = 7) had ODX-RS between 21 and 25 and only 7% (n = 3) had ODX-RS ≥ 26. Without using ODX-RS, only 16% of the patients had been offered adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to the hormonal manipulation therapy; however, after using ODX-RS, up to 33% of the cohort was suitable for adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to the hormonal manipulation therapy. The changes in the recommendations after ODX-RS utilisation have been noticed in 29% of the cohort.

Conclusion

This study revealed that ODX-RS supported decision-making regarding postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, especially when other tumour biomarkers, such as tumour size, grading, or Ki-67, indicated lower risk criteria. Patients with a high ODX-RS were offered chemotherapy where appropriate and its use led to a 15% rate of initial decision change in adjuvant treatment decisions; this involved either recommending chemotherapy or its omission.

Impact of TAILORx on chemotherapy prescribing and 21-gene recurrence score-guided treatment costs in a population-based cohort of patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx) (TAILORx) confirmed the predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay in hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer and established thresholds for chemotherapy benefit in younger and older patients. Real-world chemotherapy use and RS-guided treatment costs in British Columbia post-TAILORx were examined.

METHODS

The authors assembled 3 cohorts of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative patients with breast cancer defined by diagnosis: before RS funding (cohort 1 [C1]: January 2013-December 2013), after introduction of public RS funding (cohort 2 [C2]: July 2015-June 2016), and after TAILORx results (cohort 3 [C3]: July 2018-June 2019). Chemotherapy use was compared between cohorts by age and RS. Budgetary impacts of RS testing on chemotherapy costs were evaluated pre- and post-TAILORx.

RESULTS

Among the 2066 patients included, chemotherapy use declined by 19% after RS funding was introduced and by an additional 23% after TAILORx publication (P = .001). Reduction in chemotherapy use was significant for RS 11-20 tumors (C3 vs C2, P = .004). There was no significant change in chemotherapy use in patients >50 years old (C2:12% vs C3:10%, P = .22). RS testing was associated with higher cost savings post-TAILORx, except in patients 70 to 80 years old, where testing led to excess costs when adjusting for the low rate of RS-concordant chemotherapy prescribed.

CONCLUSIONS

TAILORx has had population-based impacts on chemotherapy prescribing in intermediate RS tumors and patients ≤50 years old. The lower clinical use of RS and increased spending in patients 70-80 years old highlights the importance of careful selection of older candidates for high-cost genomic testing.

LAY SUMMARY

The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) test helps predict whether patients with hormone-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer are likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The recent trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx) (TAILORx) found that patients with intermediate RS tumors did not benefit from chemotherapy. The authors assessed whether TAILORx results translated to real-world changes in chemotherapy prescribing patterns. In this study, chemotherapy use decreased by 23% after TAILORx, with the greatest reductions seen among intermediate RS tumors and younger patients. In contrast, RS testing had lower clinical value and increased treatment costs in elderly patients, which requires further study to ensure optimal care for this age group.

Using Breast Cancer Gene Expression Signatures in Clinical Practice: Unsolved Issues, Ongoing Trials and Future Perspectives

The development of gene expression signatures since the early 2000's has offered standardized assays to evaluate the prognosis of early breast cancer. Five signatures are currently commercially available and recommended by several international guidelines to individualize adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in hormone receptors-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer. However, many questions remain unanswered about their predictive ability, reproducibility and external validity in specific populations. They also represent a new hope to tailor (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment, adjuvant radiation therapy, hormone therapy duration and to identify a subset of patients who might benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitor adjuvant treatment. This review will highlight these particular issues, address the remaining questions and discuss the ongoing and future trials.

Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer and its treatment can have an impact on health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests aim to identify whether or not women need chemotherapy owing to their risk of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tumour profiling tests oncotype DX^® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA), MammaPrint^® (Agendia, Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Prosigna^® (NanoString Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), EndoPredict^® (Myriad Genetics Ltd, London, UK) and immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC4). To develop a health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of these tests compared with clinical tools to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services.

DESIGN

A systematic review and health economic analysis were conducted.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic review was partially an update of a 2013 review. Nine databases were searched in February 2017. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness in people with oestrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I or II cancer with zero to three positive lymph nodes. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model.

RESULTS

A total of 153 studies were identified. Only one completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice was identified: Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) for MammaPrint. Other studies suggest that all the tests can provide information on the risk of relapse; however, results were more varied in lymph node-positive (LN+) patients than in lymph node-negative (LN0) patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint can predict benefit from chemotherapy. The net change in the percentage of patients with a chemotherapy recommendation or decision pre/post test ranged from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 23% among UK studies and a decrease of 0% to 64% across European studies. The health economic analysis suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the tests versus current practice are broadly favourable for the following scenarios: (1) oncotype DX, for the LN0 subgroup with a Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) of > 3.4 and the one to three positive lymph nodes (LN1-3) subgroup (if a predictive benefit is assumed); (2) IHC4 plus clinical factors (IHC4+C), for all patient subgroups; (3) Prosigna, for the LN0 subgroup with a NPI of > 3.4 and the LN1-3 subgroup; (4) EndoPredict Clinical, for the LN1-3 subgroup only; and (5) MammaPrint, for no subgroups.

LIMITATIONS

There was only one completed RCT using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice. Except for oncotype DX in the LN0 group with a NPI score of > 3.4 (clinical intermediate risk), evidence surrounding pre- and post-test chemotherapy probabilities is subject to considerable uncertainty. There is uncertainty regarding whether or not oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. The MammaPrint analysis uses a different data source to the other four tests. The Translational substudy of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) study (used in the economic modelling) has a number of limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The review suggests that all the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Health economic analyses indicate that some tests may have a favourable cost-effectiveness profile for certain patient subgroups; all estimates are subject to uncertainty. More evidence is needed on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit, long-term impacts and changes in UK pre-/post-chemotherapy decisions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059561.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay and Prediction of Chemotherapy Benefit: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the SEER Database

Background: To evaluate the performance of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay in predicting chemotherapy benefit in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population, we aimed to assess breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) by chemotherapy use within each of the RS categories. Methods: Data on breast cancer (BC) cases diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with available RS results were released. Our analysis included patients with hormone receptor-positive, node-negative early-stage BC (n = 89,402), and three RS groups were defined; RS < 11, low; RS 11–25, intermediate; RS > 25, high. A propensity score matched-analysis was performed to assess and compare BCSM. Results: Chemotherapy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of BC death among patients in the high RS group (hazard ratio = 0.782; 95% CI, 0.618–0.990; p = 0.041). However, in the low and intermediate RS groups, there were no significant differences in BCSM between patients who received chemotherapy and those who did not. Among those with RS 11–25, chemotherapy benefit varied with tumor size (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings provide real-world evidence that the 21-gene RS assay is predictive of chemotherapy benefit among patients in clinical practice. More refined risk estimates would be needed for patients with an intermediate RS.

Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy decision and disease outcome in patients with breast cancer with a 21-gene recurrence score of 26-30

Recurrence score (RS) could be used to predict clinical outcomes and chemotherapy efficacy in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative and lymph node-negative breast cancer. However, the clinical features and management of patients with an RS of 26–30 are not completely understood. In the present study, 783 patients with HR⁺/HER2⁻, lymph node-negative early breast cancer and RS ≥18 were included and categorized into RS=18−25 (47.8%), 26–30 (25.5%) or ≥31 (26.7%) groups. Clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy usage and disease outcomes were compared. Alterations in the adjuvant chemotherapy recommendation after 21-gene RS testing were also analyzed. The results indicated that patients with RS=26−30 had higher progesterone receptor (PR) expression [odds ratio (OR)=2.84; P<0.001] and lower Ki-67 index (OR, 1.88; P=0.032) compared with patients with RS ≥31. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age ≤50 years (OR, 5.75; P=0.001) and luminal-B subtype (OR, 7.75; P<0.001) were factors that were independently associated with chemotherapy usage in the RS=26−30 group. Among 104 patients who were not recommended chemotherapy before 21-gene RS testing, the treatment decision for 52 patients was changed to recommend chemotherapy once an RS of 26–30 was identified. The patient adherence rate to the treatment recommendation was 95.0% (190/200). After a median follow-up of 21.5 months, 6 patients displayed disease recurrence in the RS=26−30 group, and there was no significant difference between patients receiving chemotherapy and patients not receiving chemotherapy. In conclusion, patients with RS=26−30 had tumors with higher PR expression and lower Ki-67 index compared with those of patients with RS ≥31. Age, luminal subtype and RS testing influenced chemotherapy usage in patients with RS=26−30; however, no significant benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy was observed in a short term of 2 years.

Personalised medicine and the decision to withhold chemotherapy in early breast cancer with intermediate risk of recurrence - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the evidence for decision making, at the health care and the patient levels, regarding the use of gene expression assays to inform chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer patients with intermediate clinical risk of recurrence.

Methods

Systematic literature searches were performed (January 2002–April 2020) in Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and HTA databases. Inclusion criteria: patients (P) were individuals with post-surgical breast cancer at intermediate clinical risk of recurrence; intervention (I)/comparison (C) was (i) use of, versus no use of, a gene expression assay and (ii) withholding versus providing chemotherapy; outcomes (O) were overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQL), and recurrence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where possible.

Results

Three inconclusive non-RCTs, respectively, compared OS and recurrence with and without a gene expression assay. No studies investigated HRQL. Regarding the comparison withholding versus providing chemotherapy based on a gene expression assay, one RCT and four non-RCTs evaluated OS. In the RCT, 93.9% (I) versus 93.8% (C) were alive at 9 years. Three RCTs and seven non-RCTs evaluated recurrence. Three RCTs could be pooled regarding distant recurrence; 4.29% versus 3.88% had such an event (risk ratio: 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.39).

Conclusion

Regarding the use of gene expression assays in breast cancer, evidence on patient effects, informing patient-level chemotherapy decision making, is available. However, evidence for prioritisation at the overall health care level, i.e. use of, versus no use of, such assays, is largely lacking.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-020-02914-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients' perceptions of 70-gene signature testing: commonly changing the initial inclination to undergo or forego chemotherapy and reducing decisional conflict

Purpose

Little is known about the impact of 70-gene signature (70-GS) use on patients’ chemotherapy decision-making. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of 70-GS use on patients’ decisions to undergo chemotherapy. The perceived decision conflict during decision-making was a secondary objective of the study.

Methods

Patients operated for estrogen receptor positive early breast cancer were asked to fill out a questionnaire probing their inclination to undergo chemotherapy before deployment of the 70-GS test. After disclosure of the 70-GS result patients were asked about their decision regarding chemotherapy. Patients’ decisional conflict was measured using the 16-item decisional conflict scale (DCS); scores < 25 are associated with a persuaded decision while a score > 37.5 implies that one feels unsure about a choice.

Results

Between January 1th 2017 and December 31th 2018, 106 patients completed both questionnaires. Before deployment of the 70-GS, 58% of patients (n = 62) formulated a clear treatment preference, of whom 21 patients (34%) changed their opinion on treatment with chemotherapy following the 70-GS. The final decision regarding chemotherapy was in line with the 70-GS result in 90% of patients. The percentage of patients who felt unsure about their preference to be treated with chemotherapy decreased from 42 to 5% after disclosure of the 70-GS. The mean total DCS significantly decreased from pre-test to post-test from 35 to 23, irrespective of the risk estimate (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Deployment of the 70-GS changed patients’ inclination to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy in one third of patients and decreased patients’ decisional conflict.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05683-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Recurrence Score on type and duration of chemotherapy in breast cancer

Background

The use of Oncotype dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.) testing has been shown to change treatment decisions in approximately 30% of breast cancer (bca) cases, but research on how Recurrence Score testing has affected the type of chemotherapy offered is limited. We sought to determine if the availability of Oncotype dx testing resulted in a change to the type and duration of chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of early-stage hormone receptor-positive bca.

Methods

In a population-based cohort study, patients treated in the 2 years before the availability of Oncotype dx testing were compared with patients treated in the 2 years after testing availability. Charts were audited and divided into 2 groups: pre-Oncotype dx and post-Oncotype dx. The groups were compared for differences in duration of chemotherapy (12 weeks vs. >12 weeks), types of agents used (anthracycline vs. non-anthracycline), and myelosuppressive potential of the chosen regimen.

Results

Of 834 patients who fulfilled the enrolment criteria, 360 fell into the pre-Oncotype dx era, and 474, into the post-Oncotype dx era. An increase of 11.2 percentage points, to 69.5% from 58.3%, was observed in the proportion of patients receiving short-course compared with long-course chemotherapy (p = 0.068). The proportion of patients prescribed anthracycline-containing regimens declined in the post-Oncotype dx era (47.7% pre vs. 32.2% post, p = 0.016). The selection of more-myelosuppressive chemotherapy protocols increased in the post-Oncotype dx era (67.4% pre vs. 78.8% post, p = 0.044).

Conclusions

In the present study, the availability of Oncotype dx testing was observed to influence the choice of chemotherapy type in the setting of early-stage bca.

Gene Expression Profiling Tests for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is a disease in which cells in the breast grow out of control. They often form a tumour that may be seen on an x-ray or felt as a lump.Gene expression profiling (GEP) tests are intended to help predict the risk of metastasis (spread of the cancer to other parts of the body) and to identify people who will most likely benefit from chemotherapy. We conducted a health technology assessment of four GEP tests (EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna) for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), or Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), depending on the type of study and outcome of interest, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients and providers for GEP tests.We performed an economic evidence review to identify published studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of each of the four GEP tests compared with usual care or with one another for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer. We adapted a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of care that includes a GEP test with usual care without a GEP test over a lifetime horizon. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests to be conducted in Ontario, compared with funding tests conducted through the out-of-country program and compared with no funding of tests in any location.To contextualize the potential value of GEP tests, we spoke with people who have been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer.

RESULTS

We included 68 studies in the clinical evidence review. Within the lymph-node-negative (LN-) population, GEP tests can prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence (GRADE: Moderate) and may predict chemotherapy benefit (GRADE: Low). The evidence for prognostic and predictive ability (ability to indicate the risk of an outcome and ability to predict who will benefit from chemotherapy, respectively) was lower for the lymph-node-positive (LN+) population (GRADE: Very Low to Low). GEP tests may also lead to changes in treatment (GRADE: Low) and generally may increase physician confidence in treatment recommendations (GRADE: Low).Our economic evidence review showed that GEP tests are generally cost-effective compared with usual care.Our primary economic evaluation showed that all GEP test strategies were more effective (led to more quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than usual care and can be considered cost-effective below a willingness-to-pay of $20,000 per QALY gained. There was some uncertainty in our results. At a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability of each test being cost-effective compared to usual care was 63.0%, 89.2%, 89.2%, and 100% for EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna, respectively.Sensitivity analyses showed our results were robust to variation in subgroups considered (i.e., LN+ and premenopausal), discount rates, age, and utilities. However, cost parameter assumptions did influence our results. Our scenario analysis comparing tests showed Oncotype DX was likely cost-effective compared with MammaPrint, and Prosigna was likely cost-effective compared with EndoPredict. When the GEP tests were compared with a clinical tool, the cost-effectiveness of the tests varied. Assuming a higher uptake of GEP tests, we estimated the budget impact to publicly fund GEP tests in Ontario would be between $1.29 million (Year 1) and $2.22 million (Year 5) compared to the current scenario of publicly funded GEP tests through the out-of-country program.Gene expression profiling tests are valued by patients and physicians for the additional information they provide for treatment decision-making. Patients are satisfied with what they learn from GEP tests and feel GEP tests can help reduce decisional uncertainty and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Gene expression profiling tests can likely prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence and some tests may also predict chemotherapy benefit. In people with breast cancer that is ER+, LN-, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, GEP tests are likely cost-effective compared with no testing. The GEP tests are also likely cost-effective in LN+ and premenopausal people. Compared with funding GEP tests through the out-of-country program, publicly funding GEP tests in Ontario would cost an additional $1 million to $2 million annually, assuming a higher uptake of tests. GEP tests are valued by both patients and physicians for chemotherapy treatment decision-making.

Impact of 21-Gene Breast Cancer Assay on Treatment Decision for Patients with T1-T3, N0-N1, Estrogen Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer: Final Results of the Prospective Multicenter ROXANE Study

BACKGROUND

The ROXANE Italian prospective study evaluated the impact of the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) results on adjuvant treatment decision for patients with early breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine centers participated. Physicians used the RS test whenever unsure about adjuvant treatment recommendation for patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative, T1-T3, N0-N1 early breast cancer. Pre-RS and post-RS treatment recommendations were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients were included. N0 patients (61%) showed higher grade (p < .001) and higher Ki67 (p = .001) and were more frequently progesterone receptor negative (p = .012) as compared with N1 patients. RS results were as follows: <11, n = 63 (25.1%); 11-25, n = 143 (57%); and ≥26, n = 45 (17.9%). Higher RS was found in N0 vs. N1 patients (p = .001) and in cases of G3 (p < .001) and higher Ki67 (p < .001). The rate of change in treatment decision was 30% (n = 75), mostly from chemotherapy (CT) plus hormone therapy (CT + HT) to hormone therapy (HT; 76%, n = 57/75). The proportion of patients recommended to CT + HT was significantly reduced from pre-RS to post-RS (52% to 36%, p < .0001). CT use reduction was more evident for N1 patients (55% to 27%) than for N0 patients (50% to 42%) and was observed only in cases of RS ≤17.

CONCLUSION

Physicians predominantly used the 21-gene assay in N0 patients with a more aggressive biology or in N1 patients showing more indolent biology. In this selected patient population, the use of RS testing led to a 30% rate of change in treatment decision. In the N1 patient subgroup, the use of RS testing contributed to reduce CT use by more than half.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study shows that, even in a context in which physicians recommend a high proportion of patients to endocrine treatment alone before knowing the results of the Recurrence Score (RS) assay, the use of the RS test, whenever uncertainty regarding adjuvant treatment recommendation is present, significantly contributes in further reducing the use of chemotherapy, especially for N1 patients.

Enhancing decision-making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer following EndoPredict testing

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy side-effects can be substantial. There is increasing recognition that some oestrogen receptor positive (ER +ve), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2 -ve) patients with breast cancer derive no benefit from chemotherapy and experience only iatrogenic harm. Gene expression profiling tests help refine recurrence risk and likely chemotherapy benefit. EndoPredict® is one such test, which classifies risks of distant recurrence as low or high in patients treated with surgery and adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. We compared treatment decisions pre-test and post-test results, patients' anxiety, decisional conflict, and oncologists' confidence about the decisions made.

METHODS

Fourteen oncologists in 7 UK hospitals saw 149 pts judged to have equivocal indications for chemotherapy. Provisional treatment decisions were recorded then reconsidered when EPClin results were available. Pre-test and post-test results, patients completed State/Trait Anxiety Inventories (STAI), and the decisional conflict scale. Oncologists also recorded basic clinical details, their agreement with, and confidence about treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent patients initially prescribed endocrine alone with high risk result upgraded to endocrine+chemotherapy (E + C); 83% prescribed E + C and had low risk scores, downgraded to E. None of 46 patients initially favouring E alone, who were low risk, changed decisions. Oncologists' confidence about decisions was significantly increased following the results (P = 0.002). Patients with downgraded treatment decisions had significantly lower anxiety scores (P = 0.045); those upgraded had increased scores (P = 0.001). Overall decisional conflict and uncertainty fell significantly post-test (P < 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

EndoPredict scores increased oncologists' and patients' decision-making confidence, generally improving the matching of risk with therapy decisions.

Spotlight on the utility of the Oncotype DX® breast cancer assay

The Oncotype DX^® assay was developed to address the need for optimizing the selection of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, lymph node-negative breast cancer. It has ushered in the era of genomic-based personalized cancer care for ER-positive primary breast cancer and is now widely utilized in various parts of the world. Together with several other genomic assays, Oncotype DX has been incorporated into clinical practice guidelines on biomarker use to guide treatment decisions. The Oncotype DX result is presented as the recurrence score which is a continuous score that predicts the risk of distant disease recurrence. The assay, which provides information on clinicopathological factors, has been validated for use in the prognostication and prediction of degree of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative early breast cancers. Clinical studies have consistently shown that the Oncotype DX has a significant impact on decision making in adjuvant therapy recommendations and appears to be cost-effective in diverse health care settings. In this article, we provide an overview of the validation and clinical impact studies for the Oncotype DX assay. We also discuss its potential use in the neoadjuvant setting, as well as the more recent prospective validation trials, and the economic and utility implications of studies that use a lower cutoff score to define low-risk disease.

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.

Clinical outcomes in ER+ HER2 -node-positive breast cancer patients who were treated according to the Recurrence Score results: evidence from a large prospectively designed registry

The Recurrence Score® is increasingly used in node-positive ER+ HER2-negative breast cancer. This retrospective analysis of a prospectively designed registry evaluated treatments/outcomes in node-positive breast cancer patients who were Recurrence Score-tested through Clalit Health Services from 1/2006 through 12/2011 (N = 709). Medical records were reviewed to verify treatments/recurrences/survival. Median follow-up, 5.9 years; median age, 62 years; 53.9% grade 2; 69.8% tumors ≤ 2 cm; 84.5% invasive ductal carcinoma; 42.0% N1mi, and 37.2%/15.5%/5.2% with 1/2/3 positive nodes; 53.4% Recurrence Score < 18, 36.4% Recurrence Score 18–30, and 10.2% Recurrence Score ≥ 31. Overall, 26.9% received adjuvant chemotherapy: 7.1%, 39.5%, and 86.1% in the Recurrence Score < 18, 18–30, and ≥ 31 group, respectively. The 5-year Kaplan–Meier estimates for distant recurrence were 3.2%, 6.3%, and 16.9% for these respective groups and the corresponding 5-year breast cancer death estimates were 0.5%, 3.4%, and 5.7%. In Recurrence Score < 18 patients, 5-year distant-recurrence rates for N1mi/1 positive node/2–3 positive nodes were 1.2%/4.4%/5.4%. As patients were not randomized to treatment and treatment decision is heavily influenced by Recurrence Score, analysis of 5-year distant recurrence by chemotherapy use was exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously: In Recurrence Score < 18, recurrence rate was 7.7% in chemotherapy-treated (n = 27) and 2.9% in chemotherapy-untreated patients (n = 352); P = 0.245. In Recurrence Score 18–30, recurrence rate in chemotherapy-treated patients (n = 102) was significantly lower than in untreated patients (n = 156) (1.0% vs. 9.7% P = 0.019); in Recurrence Score ≤ 25 (the RxPONDER study cutoff), recurrence rate was 2.3% in chemotherapy-treated (n = 89) and 4.4% in chemotherapy-untreated patients (n = 488); P = 0.521. In conclusion, our findings support using endocrine therapy alone in ER+ HER2-negative breast cancer patients with micrometastases/1–3 positive nodes and Recurrence Score < 18.

Women with breast cancer that has spread to the lymph nodes do well on anti-hormone treatment alone if they score under 18 on OncotypeDX. Salomon Stemmer from Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikvah, Israel, and colleagues conducted the first analysis of a large prospectively designed registry in which patients with breast cancer cells in the underarm lymph nodes have taken the 21-gene expression analysis known as OncotypeDX to guide their treatment. Among the 709 women with node-positive, ER-positive, HER-negative disease, patients with test scores under 18 did just as well if they received chemotherapy or not in addition to anti-hormone treatment, whereas those with scores of 18 to 30 had significantly lower recurrence rates if they received both therapies. The findings suggest that only women with OncotypeDX scores under 18 can safely forgo chemotherapy.

GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING AND EXPANDED IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY TESTS TO GUIDE SELECTION OF CHEMOTHERAPY REGIMENS IN BREAST CANCER MANAGEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this report was to assess the clinical effectiveness of two Gene expression profiling (GEP) and two expanded immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests compared with current prognostic tools in guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the evidence on clinical effectiveness of OncotypeDX, IHC4, MammaPrint, and Mammostrat, compared with current clinical practice using clinicopathological parameters, in women with early breast cancer was conducted. Ten databases were searched to include citations to May 2016.

RESULTS

Searches identified 7,064 citations, of which forty-one citations satisfied the criteria for the review. A narrative synthesis was performed. Evidence for OncotypeDX demonstrated the impact of the test on decision making and there was some support for OncotypeDX predicting chemotherapy benefit. There were relatively lower levels of evidence for the other three tests included in the analysis. MammaPrint, Mammostrat, and IHC4 tests were limited to a small number of studies. Limitations in relation to study design were identified for all tests.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for OncotypeDX is considered to be the most robust. Methodological weaknesses relating to heterogeneity of patient cohorts and issues arising from the retrospective nature of the evidence were identified. Further evidence is required for all of the tests using prospective randomized controlled trial data.