Selecting breast cancer patients for chemotherapy: the opening of the UK OPTIMA trial

Evaluation and Comparison of Prognostic Multigene Tests in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Which Is the Most Effective? A Literature Review Exploring Clinical Utility to Enhance Therapeutic Management in Luminal Patients

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy affecting women, marked by significant complexity and heterogeneity. This disease includes multiple subtypes, each with unique biological features and treatment responses. Despite significant advancements in detection and therapy, challenges remain, particularly in managing aggressive forms like triple-negative breast cancer and overcoming drug resistance. Breast cancer classification and subtype determination are typically performed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) method, which assesses four key markers (ER, PR, HER2, KI67); however, due to the recognized issues with this approach-especially regarding the evaluation of Ki67-there is a risk of misclassification. Patients who may be suitable for chemotherapy could miss possible advantages and only experience needless toxicity as a result of improper treatment decisions. Molecular profiling has improved breast cancer management, enabling the creation of multigene prognostic tests (MPTs) like Oncotype Dx, MammaPrint, Prosigna, Endopredict, and Breast Cancer Index which assess gene expression profiles to more accurately predict recurrence risks. These tools help personalize treatment, identifying patients who can avoid chemotherapy and/or extended endocrine therapy. While many MPTs are available, only Oncotype Dx and MammaPrint have prospective validation, with Prosigna providing additional prognostic insights by incorporating clinical variables. Molecular tests are especially usefull in the "gray zone," which includes tumors measuring between 1 and 3 cm with 0-3 positive lymph nodes and an intermediate proliferation index. However, their clinical utility has not been definitively established, and significant differences exist between them. This article provides an in-depth analysis of established genomic assays, including testing procedures, clinical validity, utility, diagnostic frameworks, and methodologies. Our comparison aims to improve early breast cancer management by guiding pathologists and oncologists in optimizing the use of genomic assays in clinical practice. By presenting this information, we aim to enhance understanding of the clinical utility and effectiveness of these assays, supporting the development of personalized treatment strategies for early breast cancer patients. Genomic assays offer important insights that can support treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer, especially when used alongside other clinical evaluations, predictive tools, and management guidelines. While multiple gene expression profiling tests are available, they classify patients differently and are not interchangeable; therefore, their application should be at the clinician's discretion during the decision-making process. It is essential that these tests are not the sole factor in determining the best treatment plan: other clinical considerations and patient preferences should also play a significant role in guiding treatment decisions.

Comparative survival analysis of multiparametric tests-when molecular tests disagree-A TEAM Pathology study

Multiparametric assays for risk stratification are widely used in the management of both node negative and node positive hormone receptor positive invasive breast cancer. Recent data from multiple sources suggests that different tests may provide different risk estimates at the individual patient level. The TEAM pathology study consists of 3284 postmenopausal ER+ve breast cancers treated with endocrine therapy Using genes comprising the following multi-parametric tests OncotypeDx®, Prosigna™ and MammaPrint® signatures were trained to recapitulate true assay results. Patients were then classified into risk groups and survival assessed. Whilst likelihood χ2 ratios suggested limited value for combining tests, Kaplan-Meier and LogRank tests within risk groups suggested combinations of tests provided statistically significant stratification of potential clinical value. Paradoxically whilst Prosigna-trained results stratified Oncotype-trained subgroups across low and intermediate risk categories, only intermediate risk Prosigna-trained cases were further stratified by Oncotype-trained results. Both Oncotype-trained and Prosigna-trained results further stratified MammaPrint-trained low risk cases, and MammaPrint-trained results also stratified Oncotype-trained low and intermediate risk groups but not Prosigna-trained results. Comparisons between existing multiparametric tests are challenging, and evidence on discordance between tests in risk stratification presents further dilemmas. Detailed analysis of the TEAM pathology study suggests a complex inter-relationship between test results in the same patient cohorts which requires careful evaluation regarding test utility. Further prognostic improvement appears both desirable and achievable.

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.

Propensity score analysis of the prognostic value of genomic assays for breast cancer in diverse populations using the National Cancer Data Base

BACKGROUND

Genomic assays such as Oncotype Dx (ODX) and MammaPrint are used for risk-adapted treatment decisions among patients with early breast cancer. However, to the authors' knowledge, concordance between genomic assays is modest. Using real-world data, the authors performed a comparative analysis of ODX and MammaPrint.

METHODS

A cohort of women diagnosed with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who received ODX or MammaPrint was established using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) for 2010 through 2016. Using the propensity score matching method, 2 groups of patients with similar clinical and demographic characteristics were defined: one group received ODX and the other received MammaPrint. The authors examined the association between use of the ODX or MammaPrint assays and overall survival using Cox models.

RESULTS

Of the 451,693 eligible patients, approximately 45.3% received ODX and 1.8% received MammaPrint testing. The use of ODX increased from 36.1% in 2010 to 49.9% in 2016, whereas use of MammaPrint increased from 0.5% in 2010 to 3.3% in 2016. The authors matched 5042 patients who received ODX with 5042 patients who received MammaPrint. The 5-year risks of death for the MammaPrint low-risk group and the ODX low-risk group were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The prognostic value of MammaPrint was similar to that of ODX; the C-index was 0.614 (95% confidence interval, 0.572-0.657) for MammaPrint and 0.581 (95% confidence interval, 0.530-0.631) for ODX. There was a difference in the performance of the ODX assay observed across racial and/or ethnic groups (P < .001), with a slightly better performance noted among white compared with African American and Hispanic individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ODX and MammaPrint tests are good at identifying low-risk individuals who could be spared chemotherapy. The suboptimal performance of ODX in ethnic minority individuals deserves further investigation.

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.

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.

Identification of Distinct Prognostic Groups: Implications for Patient Selection to Targeted Therapies Among Anti-Endocrine Therapy–Resistant Early Breast Cancers

PURPOSE

Hormone receptor–positive breast cancer remains an ongoing therapeutic challenge, despite optimal anti-endocrine therapies. In this study, we assessed the prognostic ability of genomic signatures to identify patients at risk for recurrence after endocrine therapy. Analysis was performed on the basis of an a priori hypothesis related to molecular pathways, which might predict response to existing targeted therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A subset of patients from the Tamoxifen Versus Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00279448 and NCT00032136, and NCT00036270) pathology cohort were analyzed to determine the prognostic ability of mutational and copy number aberration biomarkers that represent the cyclin D/cyclin-dependent kinase (CCND/CDK), fibroblast growth factor receptor/fibroblast growth factor (FGFR/FGF), and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/ATK) pathways to inform the potential choice of additional therapies to standard endocrine treatment. Copy number analysis and targeted sequencing was performed. Pathways were identified as aberrant if there were copy number aberrations and/or mutations in any of the predetermined pathway genes: CCND1/CCND2/CCND3/CDK4/CDK6, FGFR1/FGFR2/FGFR2/FGFR4, and AKT1/AKT2/PIK3CA/PTEN.

RESULTS

The 390 of 420 samples that passed quality control were analyzed for distant metastasis–free survival between groups. Patients with no changes in the CCND/CDK pathway experienced a better distant metastasis–free survival (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.45 to 2.61; P < .001) than those who possessed aberrations. In the FGFR/FGF and PI3K/AKT pathways, a similar outcome was observed (hazard ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.92; P = .017] and 1.34 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.81; P = .053], respectively).

CONCLUSION

We show that aberrations of genes in these pathways are independently linked to a higher risk of relapse after endocrine treatment. Improvement of the clinical management of early breast cancers could be made by identifying those for whom current endocrine therapies are sufficient, thus reducing unnecessary treatment, and secondly, by identifying those who are at high risk for recurrence and linking molecular features that drive these cancers to treatment with targeted therapies.

Emerging immune gene signatures as prognostic or predictive biomarkers in breast cancer

Several multigene assays have been developed to predict the risk of distant recurrence and response to adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer. However, the prognostic or predictive value of current proliferation gene signature-based assays are limited to hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer. Considerable discordance between the different assays in classifying patients into risk groups has also been reported, thus raising questions about the clinical utility of these assays for individual patients. Therefore, there still remains a need for better prognostic or predictive biomarkers for breast cancer. The role of immune cells comprising tumor microenvironment in tumor progression has been recognized. Accumulating evidences have shown that immune gene signatures and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can be prognostic or predictive factors in breast cancer, particularly with regard to HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer. In this review, I summarize current multigene assays for breast cancer and discuss recent progress in identifying novel breast cancer biomarkers, focusing on the emerging importance of immune gene signatures and TILs as prognostic or predictive biomarkers.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of multigene expression profiling assays to guide adjuvant therapy decisions in women with invasive early-stage breast cancer

Gene expression profiling (GEP) testing using 12-gene recurrence score (RS) assay (EndoPredict®), 58-gene RS assay (Prosigna®), and 21-gene RS assay (Oncotype DX®) is available to aid in chemotherapy decision-making when traditional clinicopathological predictors are insufficient to accurately determine recurrence risk in women with axillary lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor-receptor 2-negative early-stage breast cancer. We examined the cost-effectiveness of incorporating these assays into standard practice. A decision model was built to project lifetime clinical and economic consequences of different adjuvant treatment-guiding strategies. The model was parameterized using follow-up data from a secondary analysis of the Anastrozole or Tamoxifen Alone or Combined randomized trial, cost data (2017 Canadian dollars) from the London Regional Cancer Program (Canada) and secondary Canadian sources. The 12-gene, 58-gene, and 21-gene RS assays were associated with cost-effectiveness ratios of $36,274, $48,525, and $74,911/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and resulted in total gains of 379, 284.3, and 189.5 QALYs/year and total budgets of $12.9, $14.2, and $16.6 million/year, respectively. The total expected-value of perfect information about GEP assays' utility was $10.4 million/year. GEP testing using any of these assays is likely clinically and economically attractive. The 12-gene and 58-gene RS assays may improve the cost-effectiveness of GEP testing and offer higher value for money, although prospective evidence is still needed. Comparative field evaluations of GEP assays in real-world practice are associated with a large societal benefit and warranted to determine the optimal and most cost-effective assay for routine use.

Risk stratification in early breast cancer in premenopausal and postmenopausal women: integrating genomic assays with clinicopathological features

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is growing consensus that genomic assays provide useful complementary information to clinicopathological features in oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancers. Here, ongoing research with multigene tests used for postmenopausal breast cancer and new emerging prognostic and predictive markers for pre and postmenopausal women are summarised.

RECENT FINDINGS

Results of the TAILORx trial have shown that women with an intermediate risk score do not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Prosgina has been further investigated in a contemporary patient population in postmenopausal women and its use has been extended for premenopausal women. The EndoPredict was extensively used in decision-impact studies showing that its use can potentially reduce the need for adjuvant chemotherapy. Several new genomic assays have been developed, with some of them showing promising use for women with early oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

SUMMARY

New areas of research for prediction of recurrence and risk stratification involve the development of immune gene signatures that carry modest but significant prognostic value. The recent expansion of high-throughput technology platforms including circulating tumour DNA/RNA and microRNA offer new opportunities to improve prediction models, particularly in women with oestrogen receptor-negative disease and premenopausal women. Genomic assays have clearly improved prognostication of early oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer but it is clear that standard clinicopathological parameters are still very important when identifying patient for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The recurrence score based on the 21-gene breast cancer assay predicts chemotherapy benefit if it is high and a low risk of recurrence in the absence of chemotherapy if it is low; however, there is uncertainty about the benefit of chemotherapy for most patients, who have a midrange score.

METHODS

We performed a prospective trial involving 10,273 women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer. Of the 9719 eligible patients with follow-up information, 6711 (69%) had a midrange recurrence score of 11 to 25 and were randomly assigned to receive either chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. The trial was designed to show noninferiority of endocrine therapy alone for invasive disease-free survival (defined as freedom from invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death).

RESULTS

Endocrine therapy was noninferior to chemoendocrine therapy in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio for invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death [endocrine vs. chemoendocrine therapy], 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.24; P=0.26). At 9 years, the two treatment groups had similar rates of invasive disease-free survival (83.3% in the endocrine-therapy group and 84.3% in the chemoendocrine-therapy group), freedom from disease recurrence at a distant site (94.5% and 95.0%) or at a distant or local-regional site (92.2% and 92.9%), and overall survival (93.9% and 93.8%). The chemotherapy benefit for invasive disease-free survival varied with the combination of recurrence score and age (P=0.004), with some benefit of chemotherapy found in women 50 years of age or younger with a recurrence score of 16 to 25.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemoendocrine therapy had similar efficacy in women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer who had a midrange 21-gene recurrence score, although some benefit of chemotherapy was found in some women 50 years of age or younger. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; TAILORx ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180 .).

Value of Information Analysis of Multiparameter Tests for Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: The OPTIMA Prelim Trial

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine is heralded as offering more effective treatments to smaller targeted patient populations. In breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is standard for patients considered as high-risk after surgery. Molecular tests may identify patients who can safely avoid chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To use economic analysis before a large-scale clinical trial of molecular testing to confirm the value of the trial and help prioritize between candidate tests as randomized comparators.

METHODS

Women with surgically treated breast cancer (estrogen receptor-positive and lymph node-positive or tumor size ≥30 mm) were randomized to standard care (chemotherapy for all) or test-directed care using Oncotype DX™. Additional testing was undertaken using alternative tests: MammaPrint^TM, PAM-50 (Prosigna^TM), MammaTyper^TM, IHC4, and IHC4-AQUA™ (NexCourse Breast™). A probabilistic decision model assessed the cost-effectiveness of all tests from a UK perspective. Value of information analysis determined the most efficient publicly funded ongoing trial design in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

There was an 86% probability of molecular testing being cost-effective, with most tests producing cost savings (range -£1892 to £195) and quality-adjusted life-year gains (range 0.17-0.20). There were only small differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years between tests. Uncertainty was driven by long-term outcomes. Value of information demonstrated value of further research into all tests, with Prosigna currently being the highest priority for further research.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular tests are likely to be cost-effective, but an optimal test is yet to be identified. Health economics modeling to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial looking at diagnostic technology has been demonstrated to be feasible as a method for improving research efficiency.

Use of 21-gene recurrence score assay to individualize adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations in ER+/HER2- node positive breast cancer-A National Cancer Database study

The 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay is prognostic and predictive of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in node positive (N+) breast cancer (BC). We sought to evaluate use patterns of RS assay in N+, ER+/HER2- BC and the impact of RS on recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with T1-T4c,N1mi-N3, ER+/HER2- BC diagnosed 2010-2013 in the National Cancer Database were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression assessed factors influencing RS testing and chemotherapy recommendations based on RS. Among 72,897 patients, RS was obtained in 20.6%, increasing from 15.0% in 2010 to 24.5% in 2013 (p < 0.001). RS testing was most common in N1mi (43.7%) followed by N1 (22.1%) and rare in N2/N3 (3.3%). Of the 12,536 with quantitative RS results, 61.1% were low RS, 32.3% intermediate RS and 6.6% high RS. Chemotherapy was recommended less frequently in patients with RS testing (50.4%) vs. those not tested (81.0%, p < 0.001). In N1mi/N1 patients, chemotherapy recommendation varied by RS; however, in N2/N3 patients, chemotherapy was recommended in the majority (70.9-87.5%) regardless of RS. Most patients (>85%) with RS ≥ 26 were recommended chemotherapy regardless of nodal stage. For patients with RS < 26, chemotherapy recommendations increased with higher N and T stage, grade, and younger age (p < 0.001). Histology was not associated with chemotherapy recommendation in any RS subset. The RS assay is frequently and increasingly being used for decision making in node positive ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients and its use is associated with lower rates of adjuvant chemotherapy.

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.

Molecular stratification of early breast cancer identifies drug targets to drive stratified medicine

Many women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer can be managed effectively with endocrine therapies alone. However, additional systemic chemotherapy treatment is necessary for others. The clinical challenges in managing high-risk women are to identify existing and novel druggable targets, and to identify those who would benefit from these therapies. Therefore, we performed mRNA abundance analysis using the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial pathology cohort to identify a signature of residual risk following endocrine therapy and pathways that are potentially druggable. A panel of genes compiled from academic and commercial multiparametric tests as well as genes of importance to breast cancer pathogenesis was used to profile 3825 patients. A signature of 95 genes, including nodal status, was validated to stratify endocrine-treated patients into high-risk and low-risk groups based on distant relapse-free survival (DRFS; Hazard Ratio = 5.05, 95% CI 3.53-7.22, p = 7.51 × 10-19). This risk signature was also found to perform better than current multiparametric tests. When the 95-gene prognostic signature was applied to all patients in the validation cohort, including patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, the signature remained prognostic (HR = 4.76, 95% CI 3.61-6.28, p = 2.53× 10-28). Functional gene interaction analyses identified six significant modules representing pathways involved in cell cycle control, mitosis and receptor tyrosine signaling; containing a number of genes with existing targeted therapies for use in breast or other malignancies. Thus the identification of high-risk patients using this prognostic signature has the potential to also prioritize patients for treatment with these targeted therapies.

Low Ki67/high ATM protein expression in malignant tumors predicts favorable prognosis in a retrospective study of early stage hormone receptor positive breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed to investigate the combined influence of ATM and Ki67 on clinical outcome in early stage hormone receptor positive breast cancer (ES-HPBC), particularly in patients with smaller tumors (< 4 cm) and fewer than four positive lymph nodes.

METHODS

532 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens of resected primary breast tumors were used to construct a tissue microarray. Samples from 297 patients were suitable for final statistical analysis. We detected ATM and Ki67 proteins using fluorescence and brightfield immunohistochemistry respectively, and quantified their expression with digital image analysis. Data on expression levels were subsequently correlated with clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Remarkably, ATM expression was useful to stratify the low Ki67 group into subgroups with better or poorer prognosis. Specifically, in the low Ki67 subgroup defined as having smaller tumors and no positive nodes, patients with high ATM expression showed better outcome than those with low ATM, with estimated survival rates of 96% and 89% respectively at 15 years follow up (p = 0.04). Similarly, low-Ki67 patients with smaller tumors, 1-3 positive nodes and high ATM also had significantly better outcomes than their low ATM counterparts, with estimated survival rates of 88% and 46% respectively (p = 0.03) at 15 years follow up. Multivariable analysis indicated that the combination of high ATM and low Ki67 is prognostic of improved survival, independent of tumor size, grade, and lymph node status (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the prognostic value of Ki67 can be improved by analyzing ATM expression in ES-HPBC.

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians' Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.

CONCLUSIONS

Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

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.

Clinical trial designs incorporating predictive biomarkers

Development of oncologic therapies has traditionally been performed in a sequence of clinical trials intended to assess safety (phase I), preliminary efficacy (phase II), and improvement over the standard of care (phase III) in homogeneous (in terms of tumor type and disease stage) patient populations. As cancer has become increasingly understood on the molecular level, newer "targeted" drugs that inhibit specific cancer cell growth and survival mechanisms have increased the need for new clinical trial designs, wherein pertinent questions on the relationship between patient biomarkers and response to treatment can be answered. Herein, we review the clinical trial design literature from initial to more recently proposed designs for targeted agents or those treatments hypothesized to have enhanced effectiveness within patient subgroups (e.g., those with a certain biomarker value or who harbor a certain genetic tumor mutation). We also describe a number of real clinical trials where biomarker-based designs have been utilized, including a discussion of their respective advantages and challenges. As cancers become further categorized and/or reclassified according to individual patient and tumor features, we anticipate a continued need for novel trial designs to keep pace with the changing frontier of clinical cancer research.

Prospective Evaluation of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay for Breast Cancer Decision-Making in Ontario

PURPOSE

To evaluate the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) on decision-making in a population-based cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with axillary node-negative or nodal micrometastases, estrogen receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer being considered for chemotherapy were eligible. All cancer treatment centers in Ontario, Canada, participated. Oncologists made a preliminary recommendation for endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy on the basis of Adjuvant! Online (AOL) risk estimation. Patients were asked for their preference regarding chemotherapy. After RSs were available, patients returned for final decision-making. Patient satisfaction was measured by using the decisional conflict scale.

RESULTS

Between January 2012 and July 2013, 1,000 patients were recruited. RSs were available for 979 patients. In 58% of patients, risk was categorized as low (RS, 0 to 18); in 33%, intermediate (RS, 19 to 30); and in 9%, high (RS, ≥ 31). Oncologists' recommendations pretest and post-test remained the same in 464 patients (48%), changed from unsure or chemotherapy to no chemotherapy in 365 (38%), and changed from unsure or no chemotherapy to chemotherapy in 143 (15%). After the test, oncologists recommended chemotherapy for 236 patients, 81% of whom received chemotherapy. Of 151 patients in whom risk was classified as intermediate by means of AOL, 41% were a low risk and 44% intermediate risk with RS. Of 298 patients at high risk with AOL, 16% had a high risk RS. None of 236 patients with grade I tumors had a high-risk RS. Mean total decisional conflict scale score significantly improved from pretest to post-test from 34 to 19 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The RS substantially influenced both oncologists' recommendations and patients' preferences for chemotherapy. The major effect was avoidance of chemotherapy when AOL indicated high or intermediate risk.

Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prior studies with the use of a prospective-retrospective design including archival tumor samples have shown that gene-expression assays provide clinically useful prognostic information. However, a prospectively conducted study in a uniformly treated population provides the highest level of evidence supporting the clinical validity and usefulness of a biomarker.

METHODS

We performed a prospective trial involving women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer with tumors of 1.1 to 5.0 cm in the greatest dimension (or 0.6 to 1.0 cm in the greatest dimension and intermediate or high tumor grade) who met established guidelines for the consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of clinicopathologic features. A reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay of 21 genes was performed on the paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and the results were used to calculate a score indicating the risk of breast-cancer recurrence; patients were assigned to receive endocrine therapy without chemotherapy if they had a recurrence score of 0 to 10, indicating a very low risk of recurrence (on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of recurrence).

RESULTS

Of the 10,253 eligible women enrolled, 1626 women (15.9%) who had a recurrence score of 0 to 10 were assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone without chemotherapy. At 5 years, in this patient population, the rate of invasive disease-free survival was 93.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4 to 94.9), the rate of freedom from recurrence of breast cancer at a distant site was 99.3% (95% CI, 98.7 to 99.6), the rate of freedom from recurrence of breast cancer at a distant or local-regional site was 98.7% (95% CI, 97.9 to 99.2), and the rate of overall survival was 98.0% (95% CI, 97.1 to 98.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer who met established guidelines for the recommendation of adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of clinicopathologic features, those with tumors that had a favorable gene-expression profile had very low rates of recurrence at 5 years with endocrine therapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180.).

Patterns of resource utilization and cost for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer in Europe

BACKGROUND

Healthcare resource utilization in breast cancer varies by disease characteristics and treatment choices. However, lack of clarity in guidelines can result in varied interpretation and heterogeneous treatment management and costs. In Europe, the extent of this variability is unclear. Therefore, evaluation of chemotherapy use and costs versus hormone therapy across Europe is needed.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review (N = 355) examined primarily direct costs for chemotherapy versus hormone therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer across 5 European countries (France, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Sweden).

RESULTS

Total direct costs across the first 3 treatment lines were approximately €10,000 to €14,000 lower for an additional line of hormone therapy-based treatment versus switching to chemotherapy-based treatment. Direct cost difference between chemotherapy-based and hormone therapy-based regimens was approximately €1900 to €2500 per month. Chemotherapy-based regimens were associated with increased resource utilization (managing side effects; concomitant targeted therapy use; and increased frequencies of hospitalizations, provider visits, and monitoring tests). The proportion of patients taking sick leave doubled after switching from hormone therapy to chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest chemotherapy is associated with increased direct costs and potentially with increased indirect costs (lower productivity of working patients) versus hormone therapy in HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Is adjuvant chemotherapy omissible in women with T1-2 stage, node-positive, luminal A type breast cancer?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether hormonal breast cancer therapy without systemic chemotherapy is feasible in adjuvant settings in luminal A breast cancer.

METHODS

A database of 879 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery enrolled between January 2003 and December 2011 was reviewed. Patients with luminal A cancers were selected and grouped into those who received adjuvant hormonal therapy with (group C+) or without (group C - ) adjuvant systemic therapy.

RESULTS

In a multivariable analysis, axillary lymph node (ALN) metastasis was the only independent factor that revealed significantly different between the two groups in disease-free survival (DFS). The 5-year cumulative DFS was 82.3 versus 76.2% (P = 0.700) and overall survival (OS) was 83.9 versus 100% (P = 0.483) for C+ versus C -  breast cancer, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In our study, adjuvant chemotherapy in luminal A, T1-2N+ cancer showed no significant difference for DFS. We believe that the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for these women with hormonal therapy might have little benefit.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy for early breast cancer: a systematic review of the evidence for the 2014 Cancer Care Ontario systemic therapy guideline

BACKGROUND

Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc) recently created an evidence-based consensus guideline on the systemic treatment of early breast cancer. The evidence for the guideline was compiled using a systematic review to answer the question "What is the optimal systemic therapy for patients with early-stage, operable breast cancer, when patient and disease factors are considered?" The question was addressed in three parts: cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine treatment, and her2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-targeted therapy.

METHODS

For the systematic review, the literature in the medline and embase databases was searched for the period January 2008 to May 2014. The Standards and Guidelines Evidence directory of cancer guidelines and the Web sites of major oncology guideline organizations were also searched. The basic search terms were "breast cancer" and "systemic therapy" (chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, targeted agents, ovarian suppression), and results were limited to randomized controlled trials (rcts), guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Several hundred documents that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved. Meta-analyses from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group encompassed many of the rcts found. Several additional studies that met the inclusion criteria were retained, as were other guidelines and systematic reviews.

SUMMARY

The results of the systematic review constitute a comprehensive compilation of high-level evidence, which was the basis for the 2014 pebc guideline on systemic therapy for early breast cancer. The review of the evidence for systemic endocrine therapy (adjuvant tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and ovarian ablation and suppression) is presented here; the evidence for chemotherapy and her2-targeted treatment-and the final clinical practice recommendations-are presented separately in this supplement.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prognostic gene expression signature-based stratification of early breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The individual risk of recurrence in hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer patients determines whether adjuvant endocrine therapy should be combined with chemotherapy. Clinicopathological parameters and molecular tests such as EndoPredict(®) (EPclin) can support decision making in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative cancer.

OBJECTIVE

Using a life-long Markov state transition model, we determined the health economic impact and incremental cost effectiveness of EPclin-based risk stratification in combination with clinical guidelines [German-S3, National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN), and St. Gallen] to decide on chemotherapy use.

METHODS

Information on overall and metastasis-free survival came from Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group clinical trials 6/8 (n = 1,619) and published literature. Effectiveness was assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs (2010) were assessed from a German third-party payer perspective.

RESULTS

Lifetime costs per patient ranged from <euro>28,268 (St.Gallen and EPclin) to <euro>33,756 (NCCN). Due to an imperfect prognostic value and differences in chemotherapy use, strategies achieved between 13.165 QALYs (NCCN) and 13.173 QALYs (EPclin alone) per patient. Using German-S3 as reference, three strategies showed dominant results (St. Gallen and EPclin, German-S3 and EPclin, EPclin alone). Compared to German-S3, the addition of EPclin saved <euro>3,388 and gained 0.002 QALYs per patient. Combining guidelines with EPclin remained preferable in sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that molecular markers can be sensibly combined with clinical guidelines to determine the risk profile of adjuvant breast cancer patients. Compared with the current German best practice (German-S3), combinations of EPclin with the St. Gallen, German-S3 or NCCN guideline and EPclin alone were dominant from the perspective of the German healthcare system.

Genome-based risk prediction for early stage breast cancer

Tests to better characterize tumor genomic architecture are quickly becoming a standard of care in oncology. For breast cancer, the use of gene expression assays for early stage disease is already common practice. These tests have found a place in risk stratifying the heterogeneous group of stage I-II breast cancers for recurrence, for predicting chemotherapy response, and for predicting breast cancer-related mortality. In the last 5 years, more assays have become available to the practicing oncologist. Given the rapidity with which this field has evolved, it is prudent to review the tests, their indications, and the studies from which they have been validated. We present a comprehensive review of the available gene expression assays for early stage breast cancer. We review data for several individual tests and comparative studies looking at risk prediction and cost-effectiveness.

Adaptive designs for clinical trials assessing biomarker-guided treatment strategies

BACKGROUND

The Biomarker Strategy Design has been proposed for trials assessing the value of a biomarker in guiding treatment in oncology. In such trials, patients are randomised to either receive the standard chemotherapy treatment or a biomarker-directed treatment arm, in which biomarker status is used to guide treatment.

METHODS

Motivated by a current trial, we consider an adaptive design in which two biomarkers are assessed. The trial is conducted in two stages. In the first stage, patients in the biomarker-guided arm are assessed using a standard and an alternative cheaper biomarker, with the standard biomarker guiding treatment. An analysis comparing biomarker results is then used to choose the biomarker to use for the remainder of the trial. The new biomarker is used if the results for the two biomarkers are sufficiently similar.

RESULTS

We show that in practical situations the first-stage results can be used to adapt the trial without type I error rate inflation. We also show that there can be considerable cost gains with only a small loss in power in the case where the alternative biomarker is highly concordant with the standard one.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive designs have an important role in reducing the cost and increasing the clinical utility of trials evaluating biomarker-guided treatment strategies.

Genome variation and personalized cancer medicine

Genomic variation, through effects on gene structure and expression, plays an important role in understanding disease predisposition, biology and clinical response to therapy. Transforming this knowledge into clinically relevant information that tailors interventions to an individual's specific genetic, physical, social and environmental profile is challenging. To illustrate how research initiatives at preclinical phases of development are attempting to address clinically important issues in oncology, six clinical problems related to cancers of the colon, prostate, breast, pancreas and brain (medulloblastoma) as well as metastatic disease of different origins are described. A unifying theme across applications is that healthy individuals previously indistinguishable in regards to cancer risk and patients with cancer previously categorized as similar with regard to prognosis or drug response are being stratified into more refined subgroups with different clinical profiles. Effective matching of a broad range of tests with more tailored strategies for prevention and/or treatment will require well-designed clinical studies to evaluate benefits and costs.