OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer

Selecting postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer: An updated assessment and systematic review of leading commercially available gene expression assays

Gene expression assays (GEAs) can guide treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Several large prospective randomized clinical trials, and numerous additional studies, now provide new information for selecting an appropriate GEA. This systematic review builds upon prior reviews, with a focus on five widely commercialized GEAs (Breast Cancer Index®, EndoPredict®, MammaPrint®, Oncotype DX®, and Prosigna®). The comprehensive dataset available provides a contemporary opportunity to assess each GEA's utility as a prognosticator and/or predictor of adjuvant therapy benefit.

Enhancing clinical decision support with genomic tools in breast cancer: A Scottish perspective

INTRODUCTION

The Oncotype DX Breast RS test has been adopted in Scotland and has been the subject of a large population-based study by a Scottish Consensus Group to assess the uptake of the recurrence score (RS), evaluate co-variates associated with the RS and to analyse the effect it may have had on clinical practice.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Pan-Scotland study between August 2018-August 2021 evaluating 833 patients who had a RS test performed as part of their diagnostic pathway. Data was extracted retrospectively from electronic records and analysis conducted to describe change in chemotherapy administration (by direct comparison with conventional risk assessment tools), and univariate/multivariate analysis to assess relationship between covariates and the RS.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy treatment was strongly influenced by the RS (p < 0.001). Only 30 % of patients received chemotherapy treatment in the intermediate and high risk PREDICT groups, where chemotherapy is considered. Additionally, 55.5 % of patients with a high risk PREDICT had a low RS and did not receive chemotherapy. There were 17 % of patients with a low risk PREDICT but high RS who received chemotherapy. Multivariate regression analysis showed the progesterone receptor Allred score (PR score) to be a strong independent predictor of the RS, with a negative PR score being associated with high RS (OR 4.49, p < 0.001). Increasing grade was also associated with high RS (OR 3.81, p < 0.001). Classic lobular pathology was associated with a low RS in comparison to other tumour pathology (p < 0.01). Nodal disease was associated with a lower RS (p = 0.012) on univariate analysis, with menopausal status (p = 0.43) not influencing the RS on univariate or multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Genomic assays offer the potential for risk-stratified decision making regarding the use of chemotherapy. They can help reduce unnecessary chemotherapy treatment and identify a subgroup of patients with more adverse genomic tumour biology. A recent publication by Health Improvement Scotland (HIS) has updated guidance on use of the RS test for NHS Scotland. It suggests to limit its use to the intermediate risk PREDICT group. Our study shows the impact of the RS test in the low and high risk PREDICT groups. The implementation across Scotland has resulted in a notable shift in practice, leading to a significant reduction in chemotherapy administration in the setting of high risk PREDICT scores returning low risk RS. There has also been utility for the test in the low risk PREDICT group to detect a small subgroup with a high RS. We have found the PR score to have a strong independent association with high risk RS. This finding was not evaluated by the key RS test papers, and the potential prognostic information provided by the PR score as a surrogate biomarker is an outstanding question that requires more research to validate.

What Are Patients Told About Innovative Surgical Procedures? A Qualitative Synthesis of 7 Case Studies in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how information about innovative surgical procedures is communicated to patients.

BACKGROUND

Despite the national and international guidance that patients should be informed whether a procedure is innovative and has uncertain outcomes, little is known about current practice.

METHODS

This qualitative study followed 7 "case studies" of surgical innovation in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Preoperative interviews were conducted with clinician innovators (n=9), preoperative real-time consultations between clinicians and patients were audio-recorded (n=37). Patients were interviewed postoperatively (n=30). Data were synthesized using thematic analytical methods.

RESULTS

Interviews with clinicians demonstrated strong intentions to inform patients about the innovative nature of the procedure in a neutral manner, although tensions between fully informing patients and not distressing them were raised. In the consultations, only a minority of clinicians actually made explicit statements about, (1) the procedure being innovative, (2) their limited clinical experience with it, (3) the paucity of evidence, and (4) uncertainty/unknown outcomes. Discussions about risks were generalized and often did not relate to the innovative component. Instead, all clinicians optimistically presented potential benefits and many disclosed their own positive beliefs. Postoperative patient interviews revealed that many believed that the procedure was more established than it was and were unaware of the unknown risks.

CONCLUSIONS

There were contradictions between clinicians' intentions to inform patients about the uncertain outcomes of innovative and their actual discussions with patients. There is a need for communication interventions and training to support clinicians to provide transparent data and shared decision-making for innovative procedures.

The Story of the Magee Equations: The Ultimate in Applied Immunohistochemistry

Magee equations (MEs) are a set of multivariable models that were developed to estimate the actual Onco type DX (ODX) recurrence score in invasive breast cancer. The equations were derived from standard histopathologic factors and semiquantitative immunohistochemical scores of routinely used biomarkers. The 3 equations use slightly different parameters but provide similar results. ME1 uses Nottingham score, tumor size, and semiquantitative results for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, HER2, and Ki-67. ME2 is similar to ME1 but does not require Ki-67. ME3 includes only semiquantitative immunohistochemical expression levels for ER, progesterone receptor, HER2, and Ki-67. Several studies have validated the clinical usefulness of MEs in routine clinical practice. The new cut-off for ODX recurrence score, as reported in the Trial Assigning IndividuaLized Options for Treatment trial, necessitated the development of Magee Decision Algorithm (MDA). MEs, along with mitotic activity score can now be used algorithmically to safely forgo ODX testing. MDA can be used to triage cases for molecular testing and has the potential to save an estimated $300,000 per 100 clinical requests. Another potential use of MEs is in the neoadjuvant setting to appropriately select patients for chemotherapy. Both single and multi-institutional studies have shown that the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ER+/HER2-negative patients can be predicted by ME3 scores. The estimated pCR rates are 0%, <5%, 14%, and 35 to 40% for ME3 score <18, 18 to 25, >25 to <31, and 31 or higher, respectively. This information is similar to or better than currently available molecular tests. MEs and MDA provide valuable information in a time-efficient manner and are available free of cost for anyone to use. The latter is certainly important for institutions in resource-poor settings but is also valuable for large institutions and integrated health systems.

Examining the language demands of informed consent documents in patient recruitment to cancer trials using tools from corpus and computational linguistics

Obtaining informed consent (IC) is an ethical imperative, signifying participants' understanding of the conditions and implications of research participation. One setting where the stakes for understanding are high is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which test the effectiveness and safety of medical interventions. However, the use of legalese and medicalese in ethical forms coupled with the need to explain RCT-related concepts (e.g. randomization) can increase patients' cognitive load when reading text. There is a need to systematically examine the language demands of IC documents, including whether the processes intended to safeguard patients by providing clear information might do the opposite through complex, inaccessible language. Therefore, the goal of this study is to build an open-access corpus of patient information sheets (PIS) and consent forms (CF) and analyze each genre using an interdisciplinary approach to capture multidimensional measures of language quality beyond traditional readability measures. A search of publicly-available online IC documents for UK-based cancer RCTs (2000-17) yielded corpora of 27 PIS and 23 CF. Textual analysis using the computational tool, Coh-Metrix, revealed different linguistic dimensions relating to the complexity of IC documents, particularly low word concreteness for PIS and low referential and deep cohesion for CF, although both had high narrativity. Key part-of-speech analyses using Wmatrix corpus software revealed a contrast between the overrepresentation of the pronoun 'you' plus modal verbs in PIS and 'I' in CF, exposing the contradiction inherent in conveying uncertainty to patients using tentative language in PIS while making them affirm certainty in their understanding in CF.

Are we closer to being able to select patients with node-positive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who can safely omit chemotherapy?

The treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer has become increasingly individualized, thanks to the development of genomic testing. Gene expression assays provide clinicians and patients with both prognostic and predictive information regarding breast cancer recurrence risk and potential benefit of chemotherapy. While the ability to tailor therapy based on clinicopathologic and genomic factors has enabled a growing number of women to forego chemotherapy, several questions remain regarding how best to apply genomic assay results across varying subgroups of women. Here, we review the role of genomic assays for patients with both lymph node-negative and lymph node-positive breast cancer, and how these assays may help us more precisely select patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer with or without lymph node involvement who can safely omit chemotherapy in the future.

Variation in chemotherapy prescribing rates and mortality in early breast cancer over two decades: a national data linkage study

Background

Regional variation in clinical practice may identify differences in care, reveal inequity in access, and explain inequality in outcomes. The study aim was to measure geographical variation in Scotland for adjuvant chemotherapy use and mortality in early-stage breast cancer.

Patients and methods

In this retrospective cohort study using population cancer registry-based data linkage, patients with surgically treated early breast cancer between 2001 and 2018 were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. Geographical regions considered were based on NHS Scotland organisational structure including 14 territorial Health Boards as well as three regional Cancer Networks. Regional variation in the proportion receiving chemotherapy, breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality was investigated. Inter-regional comparisons of chemotherapy use were adjusted for differences in case mix using logistic regression. Comparison of breast cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality used regression with a parametric survival model. Time trends were assessed using moving average plots.

Results

Chemotherapy use ranged from 35% to 46% of patients across Health Boards without adjustment. Variation reduced between 2001 and 2018. Following adjustment for clinical case mix, variation between cancer networks was within 3 percentage points, but up to 10 percentage points from the national average in some Health Boards. Differences in breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality between cancer networks were modest, with hazard ratios of between 0.933 (95% confidence interval 0.893-0.975) and 1.041 (1.002-1.082) compared with the national average. Survival improved over the time period studied.

Conclusion

With adequate case mix adjustment, variation in adjuvant chemotherapy use for early breast cancer in Scotland is small, with a trend towards greater convergence in practice and improved mortality outcomes in more recent cohorts. This suggests very limited regional inequity in access and convergence of clinical practice towards risk-stratified treatment recommendations. Outliers require assessment to understand the reasons for variance.

•

A cohort study including the Scottish population of surgically treated early breast cancer patients from 2001 to 2018.

•

With adequate case mix adjustment, regional variation in adjuvant chemotherapy use was small, but with notable outliers.

•

Over time there was a trend towards greater convergence in practice towards risk-stratified treatment recommendations.

The impact of Oncotype DX testing on adjuvant chemotherapy decision making in 1-3 node positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncotype DX testing has reduced the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative early breast cancer but less is known about its impact in node positive patients.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the impact of Oncotype DX gene assay testing on the decision to offer adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, 1-3 lymph node positive patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all node positive patients who underwent Oncotype DX testing at a single centre. Clinicopathological data, as well as estimated survival benefit data (from the PREDICT tool), was evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of surgeons and oncologists. Treatment decisions based on clinicopathological data were compared to recurrence scores (RS). A cut off RS > 30 was used to offer adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The 69 patients were identified, of which 9 (13%) had an RS > 30 and assigned a high-genomic risk of recurrence. The 32 patients (46.4%) were offered adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall based on the use of the RS, the decision to offer adjuvant chemotherapy changed in 36% of patients, and ultimately 24 patients (34.7%) would have been spared chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Using clinicopathological data alone to make decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in node positive breast cancer leads to overtreatment. Additional information on tumour biology as assessed by the Oncotype DX RS helps to select those patients who will benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and spare patients from unnecessary chemotherapy.

Genomic Assays in Node Positive Breast Cancer Patients: A Review

In recent years, developments in breast cancer have allowed yet another realization of individualized medicine in the field of oncology. One of these advances is genomic assays, which are considered elements of standard clinical practice in the management of breast cancer. These assays are widely used today not only to measure recurrence risk in breast cancer patients at an early stage but also to tailor treatment as well and minimize avoidable treatment side effects. At present, genomic tests are applied extensively in node negative disease. In this article, we review the use of these tests in node positive disease, explore their ramifications on neoadjuvant chemotherapy decisions, highlight sufficiently powered recent studies emphasizing their use and review the most recent guidelines.

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.

DESIGN

This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set.

SETTING

This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial.

DATA SOURCES

Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol.

LIMITATIONS

Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres.

FUTURE WORK

Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Maximising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial for chronic rhinosinusitis using qualitative research methods: the MACRO conversation study

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the ‘gold standard’ of medical evidence; however, recruitment can be challenging. The MACRO trial is a NIHR-funded RCT for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) addressing the challenge of comparing surgery, antibiotics and placebo. The embedded MACRO conversation study (MCS) used qualitative research techniques pioneered by the University of Bristol QuinteT team to explore recruitment issues during the pilot phase, to maximise recruitment in the main trial.

Methods

Setting: Five outpatient Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) departments recruiting for the pilot phase of the MACRO trial (ISRCTN Number: 36962030, prospectively registered 17 October 2018). We conducted a thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 18 recruiters and 19 patients and 61 audio-recordings of recruitment conversations. We reviewed screening and recruitment data and mapped patient pathways at participating sites. We presented preliminary findings to individual site teams. Group discussions enabled further exploration of issues, evolving strategies and potential solutions. Findings were reported back to the funder and used together with recruitment data to justify progression to the main trial.

Results

Recruitment in the MACRO pilot trial began slowly but accelerated in time to progress successfully to the main trial. Research nurse involvement was pivotal to successful recruitment. Engaging the wider network of clinical colleagues emerged as an important factor, ensuring the patient pathway through primary and secondary care did not inadvertently affect trial eligibility. The most common reason for patients declining participation was treatment preference. Good patient-clinician relationships engendered trust and supported patient decision-making. Overall, trial involvement appeared clearly presented by recruiters, possibly influenced by pre-trial training. The weakest area of understanding for patients appeared to be trial medications. A clear presentation of medical and surgical treatment options, together with checking patient understanding, had the potential to allay patient concerns.

Conclusion

The MACRO conversation study contributed to the learning process of optimising recruitment by helping to identify and address recruitment issues. Although some issues were trial-specific, others have applicability to many clinical trial situations. Using qualitative research techniques to identify/explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment may be valuable during the pilot phase of many RCTs including those with complex designs.

Oncotype DX and Prosigna in breast cancer patients: A comparison study

BACKGROUND

Oncotype Dx® (ODX) is the most used prognostic and predictive assay for ER + breast cancer (BCa) and is categorized into low (< 18), intermediate (18 to 30), or high (≥31) risk of recurrence. Prosigna® is a prognostic signature to estimate distant recurrence-free survival for stage I/II, ER+ cancer in postmenopausal women treated with adjuvant therapy. The goal of the study is to assess the agreement between ODX and Prosigna®.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

100 previously ODX classified peri and postmenopausal, early-stage (I or II) BCa patients were retrieved and Prosigna assay was performed on archived tumor blocks on a NanoString nCounter® DX Analysis System.

RESULTS

ODX assay was assigned as follows: 57% low, 39% intermediate, and 4% high. There were 8% two-step disagreements (high to low or vice versa) between ODX and Prosigna®; and 42% one-step disagreement (low to intermediate or vice versa). 78% were classified by Prosigna as luminal A and 22% as luminal B. The majority of luminal A cases (67/78; 85.9%) had low ROR score whereas ODX classified almost two-thirds (50/78~ 64%) as low RS. An insignificant percentage of luminal B cases (1/22 - 4.5%) were classified as high RS by ODX, and a modest percentage were classified as high ROR by Prosigna (15/22 ~68%). According to our follow up results, recurrence was detected in three cases. In all three cases; Prosigna was a better indicator of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The agreement between ODX and Prosigna® is low, and this has management implications, especially when chemotherapy is needed.

Cole Relaxation Frequency as a Prognostic Parameter for Breast Cancer

We previously reported successful classification of breast cancer versus benign tissue using the Cole relaxation frequency measured on tissue excised during breast surgery as part of a study at two urban hospitals in the U.S. Midwest. Using that health system's cancer registry, we have discovered retrospectively that outcomes for patients who participated in the initial study can be classified correctly in 3 well-differentiated categories: nonrecurrent (NR); recurrent with no metastasis (RNM); and recurrent with metastasis (RM). As Cole relaxation frequency increases, the classification moves from NR to RNM and finally to RM. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association of "time-cancer-free" for all patients in these recurrent categories, with P-values ranging between 0.0001 to 0.0047. Thus, this follow-up report shows the potential feasibility of using Cole relaxation frequency as a prognostic parameter in a larger prospective study.

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.

Computational approaches to support comparative analysis of multiparametric tests: Modelling versus Training

Multiparametric assays for risk stratification are widely used in the management of breast cancer, with applications being developed for a number of other cancer settings. Recent data from multiple sources suggests that different tests may provide different risk estimates at the individual patient level. There is an increasing need for robust methods to support cost effective comparisons of test performance in multiple settings. The derivation of similar risk classifications using genes comprising the following multi-parametric tests Oncotype DX^® (Genomic Health.), Prosigna^™ (NanoString Technologies, Inc.), MammaPrint^® (Agendia Inc.) was performed using different computational approaches. Results were compared to the actual test results. Two widely used approaches were applied, firstly computational “modelling” of test results using published algorithms and secondly a “training” approach which used reference results from the commercially supplied tests. We demonstrate the potential for errors to arise when using a “modelling” approach without reference to real world test results. Simultaneously we show that a “training” approach can provide a highly cost-effective solution to the development of real-world comparisons between different multigene signatures. Comparisons between existing multiparametric tests is challenging, and evidence on discordance between tests in risk stratification presents further dilemmas. We present an approach, modelled in breast cancer, which can provide health care providers and researchers with the potential to perform robust and meaningful comparisons between multigene tests in a cost-effective manner. We demonstrate that whilst viable estimates of gene signatures can be derived from modelling approaches, in our study using a training approach allowed a close approximation to true signature results.

Six versus 12 months' adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: the PERSEPHONE non-inferiority RCT

BACKGROUND

The addition of adjuvant trastuzumab to chemotherapy has significantly improved outcomes for people with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, early, potentially curable breast cancer. Twelve months' trastuzumab, tested in registration trials, was adopted as standard adjuvant treatment in 2006. Subsequently, similar outcomes were demonstrated using 9 weeks of trastuzumab. Shorter durations were therefore tested for non-inferiority.

OBJECTIVES

To establish whether or not 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months' in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer using a primary end point of 4-year disease-free survival.

DESIGN

This was a Phase III randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

The setting was 152 NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 4088 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who it was planned would receive both chemotherapy and trastuzumab took part.

INTERVENTION

Randomisation (1 : 1) to 6 months' or 12 months' trastuzumab treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary end point was disease-free survival. The secondary end points were overall survival, cost-effectiveness and cardiac function during treatment with trastuzumab. Assuming a 4-year disease-free survival rate of 80% with 12 months' trastuzumab, 4000 patients were required to demonstrate non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab (5% one-sided significance, 85% power), defining the non-inferiority limit as no worse than 3% below the standard arm. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using a within-trial analysis and a lifetime decision-analytic model.

RESULTS

Between 4 October 2007 and 31 July 2015, 2045 patients were randomised to 12 months' trastuzumab and 2043 were randomised to 6 months' trastuzumab. Sixty-nine per cent of patients had ER-positive disease; 90% received anthracyclines (49% with taxanes; 41% without taxanes); 10% received taxanes without anthracyclines; 54% received trastuzumab sequentially after chemotherapy; and 85% received adjuvant chemotherapy (58% were node negative). At 6.1 years' median follow-up, with 389 (10%) deaths and 566 (14%) disease-free survival events, the 4-year disease-free survival rates for the 4088 patients were 89.5% (95% confidence interval 88.1% to 90.8%) in the 6-month group and 90.3% (95% confidence interval 88.9% to 91.5%) in the 12-month group (hazard ratio 1.10, 90% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.26; non-inferiority p = 0.01), demonstrating non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab. Congruent results were found for overall survival (non-inferiority p = 0.0003) and landmark analyses 6 months from starting trastuzumab [non-inferiority p = 0.03 (disease-free-survival) and p = 0.006 (overall survival)]. Six months' trastuzumab resulted in fewer patients reporting adverse events of severe grade [365/1929 (19%) vs. 460/1935 (24%) for 12-month patients; p = 0.0003] or stopping early because of cardiotoxicity [61/1977 (3%) vs. 146/1941 (8%) for 12-month patients; p < 0.0001]. Health economic analysis showed that 6 months' trastuzumab resulted in significantly lower lifetime costs than and similar lifetime quality-adjusted life-years to 12 months' trastuzumab, and thus there is a high probability that 6 months' trastuzumab is cost-effective compared with 12 months' trastuzumab. Patient-reported experiences in the trial highlighted fatigue and aches and pains most frequently.

LIMITATIONS

The type of chemotherapy and timing of trastuzumab changed during the recruitment phase of the study as standard practice altered.

CONCLUSIONS

PERSEPHONE demonstrated that, in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer, 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months'. Six months' treatment resulted in significantly less cardiac toxicity and fewer severe adverse events.

FUTURE WORK

Ongoing translational work investigates patient and tumour genetic determinants of toxicity, and trastuzumab efficacy. An individual patient data meta-analysis with PHARE and other trastuzumab duration trials is planned.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52968807, EudraCT 2006-007018-39 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00712140.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Strategies to Improve Recruitment to a De-escalation Trial: A Mixed-Methods Study of the OPTIMA Prelim Trial in Early Breast Cancer

AIMS

De-escalation trials are challenging and sometimes may fail due to poor recruitment. The OPTIMA Prelim randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN42400492) randomised patients with early stage breast cancer to chemotherapy versus 'test-directed' chemotherapy, with a possible outcome of no chemotherapy, which could confer less treatment relative to routine practice. Despite encountering challenges, OPTIMA Prelim reached its recruitment target ahead of schedule. This study reports the root causes of recruitment challenges and the strategies used to successfully overcome them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mixed-methods recruitment intervention (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) was used to investigate the recruitment difficulties and feedback findings to inform interventions and optimise ongoing recruitment. Quantitative site-level recruitment data, audio-recorded recruitment appointments (n = 46), qualitative interviews (n = 22) with trialists/recruiting staff (oncologists/nurses) and patient-facing documentation were analysed using descriptive, thematic and conversation analyses. Findings were triangulated to inform a 'plan of action' to optimise recruitment.

RESULTS

Despite best intentions, oncologists' routine practices complicated recruitment. Discomfort about deviating from the usual practice of recommending chemotherapy according to tumour clinicopathological features meant that not all eligible patients were approached. Audio-recorded recruitment appointments revealed how routine practices undermined recruitment. A tendency to justify chemotherapy provision before presenting the randomised controlled trial and subtly indicating that chemotherapy would be more/less beneficial undermined equipoise and made it difficult for patients to engage with OPTIMA Prelim. To tackle these challenges, individual and group recruiter feedback focussed on communication issues and vignettes of eligible patients were discussed to address discomforts around approaching patients. 'Tips' documents concerning structuring discussions and conveying equipoise were disseminated across sites, together with revisions to the Patient Information Sheet.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study illuminating the tension between oncologists' routine practices and recruitment to de-escalation trials. Although time and resources are required, these challenges can be addressed through specific feedback and training as the trial is underway.

A census of pathway maps in cancer systems biology

A key goal of cancer systems biology is to use big data to elucidate the molecular networks by which cancer develops. However, to date there has been no systematic evaluation of how far these efforts have progressed. In this Analysis, we survey six major systems biology approaches for mapping and modelling cancer pathways with attention to how well their resulting network maps cover and enhance current knowledge. Our sample of 2,070 systems biology maps captures all literature-curated cancer pathways with significant enrichment, although the strong tendency is for these maps to recover isolated mechanisms rather than entire integrated processes. Systems biology maps also identify previously underappreciated functions, such as a potential role for human papillomavirus-induced chromosomal alterations in ovarian tumorigenesis, and they add new genes to known cancer pathways, such as those related to metabolism, Hippo signalling and immunity. Notably, we find that many cancer networks have been provided only in journal figures and not for programmatic access, underscoring the need to deposit network maps in community databases to ensure they can be readily accessed. Finally, few of these findings have yet been clinically translated, leaving ample opportunity for future translational studies. Periodic surveys of cancer pathway maps, such as the one reported here, are critical to assess progress in the field and identify underserved areas of methodology and cancer biology.

The impact of Oncotype DX breast cancer assay results on clinical practice: a UK experience

BACKGROUND

Genomic tests are increasingly being used by clinicians when considering adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. The Oncotype DX breast recurrence score assay was the first test available in the UK National Health Service. This study looked at how UK clinicians were interpreting Recurrence Scores (RS) in everyday practice.

METHODS

RS, patient and tumour characteristics and adjuvant therapy details were retrospectively collected for 713 patients from 14 UK cancer centres. Risk by RS-pathology-clinical (RSPC) was calculated and compared to the low/intermediate/risk categories, both as originally defined (RS < 18, 18-30 and > 30) and also using redefined boundaries (RS < 11, 11-25 and > 25).

RESULTS

49.8%, 36.2% and 14% of patients were at low (RS < 18), intermediate (RS 18-30) and high (RS > 30) risk of recurrence, respectively. Overall 26.7% received adjuvant chemotherapy. 49.2% of those were RS > 30; 93.3% of patients were RS > 25. Concordance between RS and RSPC improved when intermediate risk was defined as RS 11-25.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world data demonstrate the value of genomic tests in reducing the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Incorporating clinical characteristics or RSPC scores gives additional prognostic information which may also aid clinicians' decision making.

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.

Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308)

INTRODUCTION

Providing balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment preferences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningioma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communication and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argumentation theory.

RESULTS

Practitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several challenges that practitioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The findings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncology trials can be challenging to recruit to, especially those that compare treatment versus monitoring. Conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences can enhance recruitment and patient understanding. This study focused on the challenges that practitioners encounter in trying to use such communication strategies and how practitioners may inadvertently impede patient recruitment and informed decision making. This article provides recommendations to support practitioners in balancing the content and presentation of trial management pathways. The results can inform training to optimize communication, especially for neuro-oncology trials and trials comparing markedly different management pathways.

One-Way Sensitivity Analysis for Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Conditional Expected Incremental Net Benefit

Although probabilistic analysis has become the accepted standard for decision analytic cost-effectiveness models, deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis continues to be used to meet the need of decision makers to understand the impact that changing the value taken by one specific parameter has on the results of the analysis. The value of a probabilistic form of one-way sensitivity analysis has been recognised, but the proposed methods are computationally intensive. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis provides decision makers with biased and incomplete information whereas, in contrast, probabilistic one-way sensitivity analysis (POSA) can overcome these limitations, an observation supported in this study by results obtained when these methods were applied to a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis to produce a conditional incremental expected net benefit curve. The application of POSA will provide decision makers with unbiased information on how the expected net benefit is affected by a parameter taking on a specific value and the probability that the specific value will be observed.

The healthcare value of the Magee Decision Algorithm™: use of Magee Equations™ and mitosis score to safely forgo molecular testing in breast cancer

Magee Equations™ are multivariable models that can estimate oncotype DX® Recurrence Score, and Magee Equation 3 has been shown to have chemopredictive value in the neoadjuvant setting as a standalone test. The current study tests the accuracy of Magee Decision Algorithm™ using a large in-house database. According to the algorithm, if all Magee Equation scores are <18, or 18-25 with a mitosis score of 1, then oncotype testing is not required as the actual oncotype recurrence score is expected to be ≤25 (labeled "do not send"). If all Magee Equation scores are 31 or higher, then also oncotype testing is not required as the actual score is expected to be >25 (also "do not send"). All other cases could be considered for testing (labeled "send"). Of the 2196 ER+, HER2-negative cases sent for oncotype testing, 1538 (70%) were classified as "do not send" and 658 (30%) as "send". The classification accuracy in the "do not send" group was 95.1%. Of the 75 (4.9%) discordant cases (expected score ≤25 by decision algorithm but the actual oncotype score >25), 26 received endocrine therapy alone. None of these 26 patients experienced distant recurrence (average follow-up of 73 months). The Magee Decision Algorithm accurately identifies cases that will not benefit from oncotype testing. Such cases constitute ~70% of the routine clinical oncotype requests, an estimated saving of $300,000 per 100 test requests. The occasional discordant cases (expected ≤25, but actual oncotype score >25) appears to have an excellent outcome on endocrine therapy alone.

Study protocol for VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer, a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot (the VIOLET study)

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide and surgery remains the main treatment for early stage disease. Prior to the introduction of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), lung resection for cancer was undertaken through an open thoracotomy. To date, the evidence base supporting the different surgical approaches is based on non-randomised studies, small randomised trials and is focused mainly on short-term in-hospital outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer study is a UK multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with blinding of outcome assessors and participants (to hospital discharge) comparing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of VATS lobectomy versus open lobectomy for treatment of lung cancer. We will test the hypothesis that VATS lobectomy is superior to open lobectomy with respect to self-reported physical function 5 weeks after randomisation (approximately 1 month after surgery). Secondary outcomes include assessment of efficacy (hospital stay, pain, proportion and time to uptake of chemotherapy), measures of safety (adverse health events), oncological outcomes (proportion of patients upstaged to pathologic N2 (pN2) disease and disease-free survival), overall survival and health related quality of life to 1 year. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is integrated into the trial to optimise recruitment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been approved by the UK (Dulwich) National Research Ethics Service Committee London. Findings will be written-up as methodology papers for conference presentation, and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Many aspects of the feasibility work will inform surgical RCTs in general and these will be reported at methodology meetings. We will also link with lung cancer clinical studies groups. The patient and public involvement group that works with the Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit at the Brompton Hospital will help identify how we can best publicise the findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13472721.

Pre-trial qualitative work with health care professionals to refine the design and delivery of a randomised controlled trial on kidney care

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Pre-trial qualitative research provides insights into the feasibility and acceptability of proposed trial designs and delivery; however, this is rarely conducted. This paper reports on work undertaken in advance of the Prepare for Kidney Care trial (formerly PrepareME), which compares preparing for dialysis with preparing for conservative care for patients with chronic kidney disease. The paper describes how the findings refined plans for the forthcoming trial.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with health-care professionals involved in delivering or recruiting to the trial. Interview findings were considered in relation to observations of a patient advisory group workshop and introductory site visits, which were set up to present the trial to professionals involved in the internal pilot phase of the RCT. The use of findings and input from multiple sources was intended to support suggested refinements to the forthcoming trial. The findings were fed back to the trial management group and other expert stakeholders.

RESULTS

Sixteen health-care professionals were interviewed, and one patient advisory group workshop and six introductory visits to sites involved in the internal pilot were observed. The professionals interviewed included renal consultants, nurses and renal social workers. Key themes identified from the interviews, supported by the observations, were concerns around the eligibility criteria, the feasibility of the trial intervention, imbalances in the presentation of the trial arms, and anticipated recruitment issues arising from patients' and clinicians' preferences for one arm or the other. Changes to the design were made in response, including to the content of the intervention, the presentation of the trial arms and the name of the RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the value of carrying out pre-trial work with health-care professionals to identify issues with delivering the proposed trial. This work can be particularly valuable in trials of new interventions, for which the barriers to their integration into routine care are unknown. This work has important implications for facilitating the identification of further obstacles in the main RCT. We suggest that pre-trial qualitative work is undertaken to address design issues early on, in addition to ongoing qualitative research to monitor the emergence of obstacles affecting recruitment.

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture.

DESIGN

We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation.

SETTING

Five NHS hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa.

INTERVENTIONS

Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The randomisation of 80 men.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and 'tips' documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) - with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants - than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted.

FUTURE WORK

Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Review of Clinical Trials With an Adaptive Design and Health Economic Analysis

OBJECTIVE

An adaptive design uses data collected as a clinical trial progresses to inform modifications to the trial. Hence, adaptive designs and health economics aim to facilitate efficient and accurate decision making. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the methods are considered together in the design, analysis, and reporting of trials. This review aims to establish how health economic outcomes are used in the design, analysis, and reporting of adaptive designs.

METHODS

Registered and published trials up to August 2016 with an adaptive design and health economic analysis were identified. The use of health economics in the design, analysis, and reporting was assessed. Summary statistics are presented and recommendations formed based on the research team's experiences and a practical interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials with an adaptive design and health economic analysis were identified. It was not clear whether the health economic analysis accounted for the adaptive design in 17/37 trials where this was thought necessary, nor whether health economic outcomes were used at the interim analysis for 18/19 of trials with results. The reporting of health economic results was suboptimal for the (17/19) trials with published results.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate consideration is rarely given to the health economic analysis of adaptive designs. Opportunities to use health economic outcomes in the design and analysis of adaptive trials are being missed. Further work is needed to establish whether adaptive designs and health economic analyses can be used together to increase the efficiency of health technology assessments without compromising accuracy.

The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties and then implements "QRI actions" to address these as recruitment proceeds.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods study, comprising (1) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and the numbers of patients approached and (2) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators.

RESULTS

Five UK-based publicly funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. Randomized controlled trial 2 and RCT 5 both received up-front prerecruitment training before the intervention was applied. Randomized controlled trial 2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4, and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved after QRI action in RCTs 1, 3, and 4. Quintet Recruitment Intervention actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in the number of patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of and reportedly changed their practices after QRI action.

CONCLUSION

There is promising evidence to suggest that the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations.

Recent advances in breast cancer research impacting clinical diagnostic practice

During the last decade, the genomics revolution has driven critical advances in molecular oncology and pathology, and a deeper appreciation of heterogeneity that is beginning to reshape our thinking around diagnostic classification. Recent developments have seen existing classification systems modified and improved where possible, gene-based diagnostics implemented and tumour-immune interactions modulated. We present a detailed discussion of this progress, including advances in the understanding of breast tumour classification, e.g. mixed ductal-lobular tumours and the spectrum of triple-negative breast cancer. The latest information on clinical trials and the implementation of gene-based diagnostics, including MammaPrint and Oncotype Dx and others, is synthesised, and emerging targeted therapies, as well as the burgeoning immuno-oncology field, and their relevance in breast cancer, are discussed. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overcoming difficulties with equipoise to enable recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of partial ablation vs radical prostatectomy for unilateral localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe how clinicians conceptualised equipoise in the PART (Partial prostate Ablation vs Radical prosTatectomy in intermediate-risk unilateral clinically localised prostate cancer) feasibility study and how this affected recruitment.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

PART included a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment. Phase I aimed to understand recruitment, and included: scrutinising recruitment data, interviewing the trial management group and recruiters (n = 13), and audio-recording recruitment consultations (n = 64). Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis methods. In Phase II, strategies to improve recruitment were developed and delivered.

RESULTS

Initially many recruiters found it difficult to maintain a position of equipoise and held preconceptions about which treatment was best for particular patients. They did not feel comfortable about approaching all eligible patients, and when the study was discussed, biases were conveyed through the use of terminology, poorly balanced information, and direct treatment recommendations. Individual and group feedback led to presentations to patients becoming clearer and enabled recruiters to reconsider their sense of equipoise. Although the precise impact of the QRI alone cannot be determined, recruitment increased (from a mean [range] of 1.4 [0-4] to 4.5 [0-12] patients/month) and the feasibility study reached its recruitment target.

CONCLUSION

Although clinicians find it challenging to recruit patients to a trial comparing different contemporary treatments for prostate cancer, training and support can enable recruiters to become more comfortable with conveying equipoise and providing clearer information to patients.

The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) of In Vitro Tests

INTRODUCTION

Numerous factors contribute to uncertainty in test measurement procedures, and this uncertainty can have a significant impact on the downstream clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of testing strategies. Currently, however, there is no clear guidance concerning if or how such factors should be considered within Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) of tests.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to provide an introduction to key concepts in measurement uncertainty for the HTA community and to explore, via systematic review, current methods utilised within HTAs.

METHODS

HTAs of in vitro tests including a model-based economic evaluation were identified via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) HTA database and key reimbursement authority websites. Data were extracted to explore the specific components of measurement uncertainty assessed and methods utilised. The findings were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

Of 107 identified HTAs, 20 (19%) attempted to assess components of measurement uncertainty: 15 did so via some form of pre-model assessment (such as a literature review or laboratory survey); four also included components within the economic model; and one considered measurement uncertainty within the model only. One study quantified the impact of measurement uncertainty on cost-effectiveness and found that this parameter significantly changed the results, but did not impact the overall decision uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

A minority of HTAs identified from this review used various approaches to assess and/or incorporate the impact of measurement uncertainty, indicating that these assessments are feasible. Uncertainty remains around best practice methodology for conducting such analyses; further research is required to ensure that future HTAs are fit for purpose.

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment.

METHODS

Eight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs.

RESULTS

The eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR - Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.

Prognostic value of PAM50 and risk of recurrence score in patients with early-stage breast cancer with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of the PAM50 intrinsic subtypes and risk of recurrence (ROR) score in patients with early breast cancer and long-term follow-up. A special focus was placed on hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) pN0 patients not treated with chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with early breast cancer (n = 653) enrolled in the observational Oslo1 study (1995-1998) were followed for distant recurrence and breast cancer death. Clinicopathological parameters were collected from hospital records. The primary tumors were analyzed using the Prosigna® PAM50 assay to determine the prognostic value of the intrinsic subtypes and ROR score in comparison with pathological characteristics. The primary endpoints were distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).

RESULTS

Of 653 tumors, 52.2% were classified as luminal A, 26.5% as luminal B, 10.6% as HER2-enriched, and 10.7% as basal-like. Among the HR+/HER2- patients (n = 476), 37.8% were categorized as low risk by ROR score, 22.7% as intermediate risk, and 39.5% as high risk. Median follow-up durations for BCSS and DDFS were 16.6 and 7.1 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that intrinsic subtypes (all patients) and ROR risk classification (HR+/HER2- patients) yielded strong prognostic information. Among the HR+/HER2- pN0 patients with no adjuvant treatment (n = 231), 53.7% of patients had a low ROR, and their prognosis at 15 years was excellent (15-year BCSS 96.3%). Patients with intermediate risk had reduced survival compared with those with low risk (p = 0.005). In contrast, no difference in survival between the low- and intermediate-risk groups was seen for HR+/HER2- pN0 patients who received tamoxifen only. Ki-67 protein, grade, and ROR score were analyzed in the unselected, untreated pT1pN0 HR+/HER2- population (n = 171). In multivariate analysis, ROR score outperformed both Ki-67 and grade. Furthermore, 55% of patients who according to the PREDICT tool ( http://www.predict.nhs.uk/ ) would be considered chemotherapy candidates were ROR low risk (33%) or luminal A ROR intermediate risk (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PAM50 intrinsic subtype classification and ROR score improve classification of patients with breast cancer into prognostic groups, allowing for a more precise identification of future recurrence risk and providing an improved basis for adjuvant treatment decisions. Node-negative patients with low ROR scores had an excellent outcome at 15 years even in the absence of adjuvant therapy.

Budget impact analysis of gene expression tests to aid therapy decisions for breast cancer patients in Germany

OBJECTIVES

Many women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer may not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Gene expression tests can reduce chemotherapy over- and undertreatment by providing prognostic information on the likelihood of recurrence and, with Oncotype DX, predictive information on chemotherapy benefit. These tests are currently not reimbursed by German healthcare payers. An analysis was conducted to evaluate the budget impact of gene expression tests in Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Costs of gene expression tests and medical and non-medical costs associated with treatment were assessed from healthcare payer and societal perspectives. Costs were estimated from data collected at a university hospital and were combined with decision impact data for Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna and EndoPredict (EPclin). Changes in chemotherapy use and budget impact were evaluated over 1 year for 20,000 women.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy was associated with substantial annual costs of EUR 19,003 and EUR 84,412 per therapy from the healthcare payer and societal perspective, respectively. Compared with standard care, only Oncotype DX was associated with cost savings to healthcare payers and society (EUR 5.9 million and EUR 253 million, respectively). Scenario analysis showed that both women at high clinical but low genomic risk and low clinical but high genomic risk were important contributors to costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncotype DX was the only gene expression test that was estimated to reduce costs versus standard care in Germany. The reimbursement of Oncotype DX testing in standard clinical practice in Germany should be considered.

Comparison of risk classification between EndoPredict and MammaPrint in ER-positive/HER2-negative primary invasive breast cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the concordance in risk classification between the EndoPredict and the MammaPrint scores obtained for the same cancer samples on 40 estrogen-receptor positive/HER2-negative breast carcinomas.

METHODS

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded invasive breast carcinoma tissues that were previously analyzed with MammaPrint as part of routine care of the patients, and were classified as high-risk (20 patients) and low-risk (20 patients), were selected to be analyzed by the EndoPredict assay, a second generation gene expression test that combines expression of 8 genes (EP score) with two clinicopathological variables (tumor size and nodal status, EPclin score).

RESULTS

The EP score classified 15 patients as low-risk and 25 patients as high-risk. EPclin re-classified 5 of the 25 EP high-risk patients into low-risk, resulting in a total of 20 high-risk and 20 low-risk tumors. EP score and MammaPrint score were significantly correlated (p = 0.008). Twelve of 20 samples classified as low-risk by MammaPrint were also low-risk by EP score (60%). 17 of 20 MammaPrint high-risk tumors were also high-risk by EP score. The overall concordance between EP score and MammaPrint was 72.5% (κ = 0.45, (95% CI, 0.182 to 0.718)). EPclin score also correlated with MammaPrint results (p = 0.004). Discrepancies between both tests occurred in 10 cases: 5 MammaPrint low-risk patients were classified as EPclin high-risk and 5 high-risk MammaPrint were classified as low-risk by EPclin and overall concordance of 75% (κ = 0.5, (95% CI, 0.232 to 0.768)).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates a limited concordance between MammaPrint and EndoPredict. Differences in results could be explained by the inclusion of different gene sets in each platform, the use of different methodology, and the inclusion of clinicopathological parameters, such as tumor size and nodal status, in the EndoPredict test.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC)

BACKGROUND

Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding.

METHODS

Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above.

RESULTS

DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.

Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study

Background:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving surgical procedures are challenging for recruitment and infrequent in the specialty of bariatrics. The pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study (gastric bypass versus gastric band versus sleeve gastrectomy) provided the opportunity for an investigation of recruitment using a qualitative research integrated in trials (QuinteT) recruitment intervention (QRI).

Patients/Methods:

The QRI investigated recruitment in two centers in the pilot phase comparing bypass and banding, through the analysis of 12 in-depth staff interviews, 84 audio recordings of patient consultations, 19 non-participant observations of consultations and patient screening data. QRI findings were developed into a plan of action and fed back to centers to improve information provision and recruitment organization.

Results:

Recruitment proved to be extremely difficult with only two patients recruited during the first 2 months. The pivotal issue in Center A was that an effective and established clinical service could not easily adapt to the needs of the RCT. There was little scope to present RCT details or ensure efficient eligibility assessment, and recruiters struggled to convey equipoise. Following presentation of QRI findings, recruitment in Center A increased from 9% in the first 2 months (2/22) to 40% (26/65) in the 4 months thereafter. Center B, commencing recruitment 3 months after Center A, learnt from the emerging issues in Center A and set up a special clinic for trial recruitment. The trial successfully completed pilot recruitment and progressed to the main phase across 11 centers.

Conclusions:

The QRI identified key issues that enabled the integration of the trial into the clinical setting. This contributed to successful recruitment in the By-Band-Sleeve trial—currently the largest in bariatric practice—and offers opportunities to optimize recruitment in other trials in bariatrics.

Discrepancies in central review re-testing of patients with ER-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer in the OPTIMA prelim randomised clinical trial

Background:

There is limited data on results of central re-testing of samples from patients with invasive breast cancer categorised in their local hospital laboratories as oestrogen receptor (ER) positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor homologue 2 (HER2) negative.

Methods:

The Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multiparameter Analysis preliminary study (OPTIMA prelim) was the feasibility phase of a randomised controlled trial to validate the use of multiparameter assay-directed chemotherapy decisions in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Eligibility criteria included ER positivity and HER2 negativity. Central re-testing of receptor status was mandatory.

Results:

Of the 431 patients tested centrally, discrepant results between central and local laboratory results were identified in only 19 (4.4% 95% confidence interval 2.5–6.3%) patients (with 21 tumours). On central review, seven patients had cancers that were ER-negative (1.6%) and 13 (3.0%) patients with 15 tumours had HER2-positive disease, including one tumour discrepant for both biomarkers.

Conclusions:

Central re-testing of receptor status of invasive breast cancers in the UK NHS setting shows a high level of reproducibility in categorising tumours as ER-positive and HER2-negative, and raises questions regarding the cost effectiveness and clinical value of central re-testing in this sub-group of breast cancers in this setting.

A metastasis biomarker (MetaSite Breast™ Score) is associated with distant recurrence in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer

Metastasis is the primary cause of death in early-stage breast cancer. We evaluated the association between a metastasis biomarker, which we call "Tumor Microenviroment of Metastasis" (TMEM), and risk of recurrence. TMEM are microanatomic structures where invasive tumor cells are in direct contact with endothelial cells and macrophages, and which serve as intravasation sites for tumor cells into the circulation. We evaluated primary tumors from 600 patients with Stage I-III breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in trial E2197 (NCT00003519), plus endocrine therapy for hormone receptor (HR)+ disease. TMEM were identified and enumerated using an analytically validated, fully automated digital pathology/image analysis method (MetaSite Breast™), hereafter referred to as MetaSite Score (MS). The objectives were to determine the association between MS and distant relapse free interval (DRFI) and relapse free interval (RFI). MS was not associated with tumor size or nodal status, and correlated poorly with Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (r = 0.29) in 297 patients with HR+/HER2- disease. Proportional hazards models revealed a significant positive association between continuous MS and DRFI (p = 0.001) and RFI (p = 0.00006) in HR+/HER2- disease in years 0-5, and by MS tertiles for DRFI (p = 0.04) and RFI (p = 0.01), but not after year 5 or in triple negative or HER2+ disease. Multivariate models in HR+/HER- disease including continuous MS, clinical covariates, and categorical Recurrence Score (<18, 18-30, > 30) showed MS is an independent predictor for 5-year RFI (p = 0.05). MetaSite Score provides prognostic information for early recurrence complementary to clinicopathologic features and Recurrence Score.

Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI)

Background

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered essential to determine effective interventions for routine clinical practice, but many fail to recruit participants efficiently, and some really important RCTs are not undertaken because recruitment is thought to be too difficult. The ‘QuinteT Recruitment Intervention’ (QRI) aims to facilitate informed decision making by patients about RCT participation and to increase recruitment. This paper presents the development and implementation of the QRI.

Methods

The QRI developed iteratively as a complex intervention. It emerged from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ProtecT trial and has been developed further in 13 RCTs. The final version of the QRI uses a combination of standard and innovative qualitative research methods with some simple quantification to understand recruitment and identify sources of difficulties.

Results

The QRI has two major phases: understanding recruitment as it happens and then developing a plan of action to address identified difficulties and optimise informed consent in collaboration with the RCT chief investigator (CI) and the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU). The plan of action usually includes RCT-specific, as well as generic, aspects. The QRI can be used in two ways: it can be integrated into the feasibility/pilot or main phase of an RCT to prevent difficulties developing and optimise recruitment from the start, or it can be applied to an ongoing RCT experiencing recruitment shortfalls, with a view to rapidly improving recruitment and informed consent or gathering evidence to justify RCT closure.

Conclusions

The QRI provides a flexible way of understanding recruitment difficulties and producing a plan to address them while ensuring engaged and well-informed decision making by patients. It can facilitate recruitment to the most controversial and important RCTs. QRIs are likely to be of interest to the CIs and CTUs developing proposals for ‘difficult’ RCTs or for RCTs with lower than expected recruitment and to the funding bodies wishing to promote efficient recruitment in pragmatic RCTs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others

BACKGROUND

Previous reports identifying discordance between multiparameter tests at the individual patient level have been largely attributed to methodological shortcomings of multiple in silico studies. Comparisons between tests, when performed using actual diagnostic assays, have been predicted to demonstrate high degrees of concordance. OPTIMA prelim compared predicted risk stratification and subtype classification of different multiparameter tests performed directly on the same population.

METHODS

Three hundred thirteen women with early breast cancer were randomized to standard (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or test-directed (chemotherapy if Oncotype DX recurrence score >25) treatment. Risk stratification was also determined with Prosigna (PAM50), MammaPrint, MammaTyper, NexCourse Breast (IHC4-AQUA), and conventional IHC4 (IHC4). Subtype classification was provided by Blueprint, MammaTyper, and Prosigna.

RESULTS

Oncotype DX predicted a higher proportion of tumors as low risk (82.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.8% to 86.4%) than were predicted low/intermediate risk using Prosigna (65.5%, 95% CI = 60.1% to 70.9%), IHC4 (72.0%, 95% CI = 66.5% to 77.5%), MammaPrint (61.4%, 95% CI = 55.9% to 66.9%), or NexCourse Breast (61.6%, 95% CI = 55.8% to 67.4%). Strikingly, the five tests showed only modest agreement when dichotomizing results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Only 119 (39.4%) tumors were classified uniformly as either low/intermediate risk or high risk, and 183 (60.6%) were assigned to different risk categories by different tests, although 94 (31.1%) showed agreement between four of five tests. All three subtype tests assigned 59.5% to 62.4% of tumors to luminal A subtype, but only 121 (40.1%) were classified as luminal A by all three tests and only 58 (19.2%) were uniformly assigned as nonluminal A. Discordant subtyping was observed in 123 (40.7%) tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests that current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorization and subtype information.