Clinical experience of using oncotype DX as an additional treatment decision tool in early breast cancer – A retrospective analysis from 5 Greek institutions

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.

Association of 21-Gene Assay (OncotypeDX) Testing and Receipt of Chemotherapy in the Medicare Breast Cancer Patient Population Following Initial Adoption

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to investigate why early studies regarding adoption of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay did not show an initial reduction in the number of patients with breast cancer receiving real-world chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We addressed 2 sources of confounding suspected in previous studies: (1) the early time frame during the initial adoption phase of the RS assay, and (2) suspected selective, increased administration to patients more likely to have been chemotherapy candidates. To address selective use during initial adoption, we used updated SEER-Medicare data from 2004 and 2011. To address individual selection bias, we examined whether RS test utilization was negatively associated with rates of local chemotherapy use assessed at the hospital referral region level using conventional ordinary least squares and instrumental variable approaches to adjust for selection bias.

RESULTS

A total of 26,009 patients met inclusion criteria. Assay use was associated with a decrease in absolute percentage use of chemotherapy of 4.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2%-5.7%), which was even more pronounced in sensitivity analyses limited to later study years (2008-2011), with a decrease of 6.8% (95% CI, 5.3%-8.3%). Instrumental variable models yielded similar point estimates but were insufficiently powered to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Receipt of the 21-gene assay was associated with decreased utilization of chemotherapy by 2008.

A novel quantitative immunohistochemistry method for precise protein measurements directly in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens: analytical performance measuring HER2

In clinical routine pathology today, detection of protein in intact formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue is limited to immunohistochemistry, which is semi-quantitative. This study presents a new and reliable quantitative immunohistochemistry method, qIHC, based on a novel amplification system that enables quantification of protein directly in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue by counting of dots. The qIHC technology can be combined with standard immunohistochemistry, and assessed using standard bright-field microscopy or image analysis. The objective was to study analytical performance of the qIHC method. qIHC was tested under requirements for an analytical quantitative test, and compared with ELISA and flow cytometry for quantitative protein measurements. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) protein expression was measured in five different cell lines with HER2 expression from undetectable with immunohistochemistry to strong positive staining (IHC 3+). Repeatability, reproducibility, robustness, linearity, dynamic range, sensitivity, and quantification limits were evaluated. Reproducibility and robustness were assessed in a setup to resemble daily work in a laboratory using a commercial immunohistochemistry platform. In addition, qIHC was correlated to standard HER2 immunohistochemistry in 44 breast cancer specimens. For all evaluated parameters, qIHC performance was either comparable or better than the reference methods. Furthermore, qIHC has a lower limit of detection than both immunohistochemistry and the ELISA reference method, and demonstrated ability to measure HER2 accurately and precise within a large dynamic range. In conclusion, the results show that qIHC provides a sensitive, quantitative, accurate, and robust assay for measurement of protein expression in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell lines, and tissue.

Impact of Oncotype DX breast Recurrence Score testing on adjuvant chemotherapy use in early breast cancer: Real world experience in Greater Manchester, UK

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended the Oncotype DX^® Breast Recurrence Score^® (RS) assay as an option for informing adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in node-negative, oestrogen receptor (ER)+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer assessed to be at intermediate risk of recurrence based on clinicopathological factors. We evaluated the impact of RS testing on adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making in routine clinical practice in a UK Cancer Network.

METHODS

RS testing was performed in 201 females with newly diagnosed, ER+, HER2-negative, invasive breast cancer who underwent breast surgery with curative intent, were calculated to have a >3% overall survival benefit at 10 years from adjuvant chemotherapy based on PREDICT, and were considered for adjuvant chemotherapy. The impact of RS testing on adjuvant treatment decisions/associated cost was assessed.

RESULTS

In all patients, the multi-disciplinary team recommended chemotherapy but the RS result allowed 127/201 patients (63.2%) to avoid unnecessary adjuvant chemotherapy. Amongst ER+, HER2-negative, node-negative patients (eligible for Oncotype DX testing in UK guidelines), 60.3% were spared chemotherapy. In node-positive patients, the assay reduced the use of chemotherapy by 69.2%. The use of RS testing to guide treatment in these 201 patients was associated with significant cost saving (when considering the cost of RS testing for all patients plus chemotherapy and its associated cost for 74 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating RS testing into routine clinical practice for selected node-negative and node-positive breast cancer patients significantly reduces the use of chemotherapy (p < 0.001) with its associated morbidity and costs.

Clinical evidence supporting genomic tests in early breast cancer: Do all genomic tests provide the same information?

Breast cancer (BC) has historically been treated as a single disease entity; however, in the last decade, insights into its molecular heterogeneity have underpinned the development/commercialisation of several genomic tools whose goal is to guide patient management in early BC. These include the Oncotype DX^® Breast Recurrence Score™ assay, MammaPrint^®, Prosigna^®, and EndoPredict^®. Although these assays are similar in that they are all multigene assays reflecting risk of recurrence, they differ substantially in the technological platform used to measure gene expression; the number and identity of genes assessed; the patient populations used for development and validation; and the level of evidence supporting clinical utility. They also differ in the amount of evidence demonstrating their impact on treatment decisions and cost effectiveness in different countries. This review discusses these 4 assays, highlighting the clinical evidence that supports each of them, while focussing on the Recurrence Score assay. This assay has the greatest body of evidence supporting its clinical utility and decision impact/effectiveness, and currently is the only one validated as a predictor of response to adjuvant chemotherapy in hormone-receptor positive early BC patients treated with endocrine therapy and to be included as such in international/national BC treatment guidelines. The review also discusses ongoing prospective trials investigating the 4 assays, recent outcome studies, as well as analyses comparing different assays on the same tumour blocks.

Tumor-stromal interactions in breast tumor progression--significance of histological heterogeneity of tumor-stromal fibroblasts

INTRODUCTION

Existing pathological diagnostic protocols for breast cancer do not fully reflect the biological characteristics of tumor stromata. To improve the pathological diagnosis of breast cancer, a new pathological diagnostic method capable of assessing the degree of breast cancer malignancy based on the histological features of the tumor stroma is needed.

AREAS COVERED

The presence of a fibrotic focus (FF), which consists of fibroblasts or collagen fibers, and the presence of atypical tumor-stromal fibroblasts are significantly associated with nodal metastasis or distant-organ metastasis in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. FF is the only factor that is significantly associated with an increase in tumor angiogenesis. The importance of FF and atypical tumor-stromal fibroblasts clearly indicates that the malignant potential of IDC does not depend only on the biological characteristics of the tumor cell, but also on those of the tumor stroma.

EXPERT OPINION

The biological characteristics of fibroblasts forming an FF or atypical tumor-stromal fibroblasts probably differ from those of fibroblasts located outside an FF or ordinary tumor-stromal fibroblasts. Thus, similar to tumor cells, the heterogeneity of tumor-stromal fibroblasts probably influences the outcome of patients with IDC of the breast.