[Economic assessment of the routine use of Oncotype DX® assay for early breast cancer in Franche-Comte region]

Use of prognostic gene expression profiling tests in primary breast cancer treatment: a German real-world patient survey

Aims: In primary breast cancer, gene expression profiling tests can support adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Real-world test use in Germany was investigated in an online survey of female breast cancer patients (n = 475). Materials & methods: Relationships between three groups were examined for clinical and statistical relevance: no test indication (n = 353), test indication and tested (n = 65), and test indication but not tested (n = 57). Results: A total of 47% of participants with a test indication were not tested. Test rates increased by 23% from 2012-2018 (49%) to 2019-2021 (60%). A total of 65% of patients without testing received chemotherapy, whereas only 38% of tested patients received chemotherapy. Conclusion: The use of gene expression profiling tests correlates with a real-world chemotherapy reduction. Gene expression profiling testing may improve patient confidence in the decision for or against chemotherapy.

Low correlation between Ki67 assessed by qRT-PCR in Oncotype Dx score and Ki67 assessed by Immunohistochemistry

Breast cancers expressing high levels of Ki67 are associated with poor outcomes. Oncotype DX test was designed for ER+/HER2- early-stage breast cancers to help adjuvant chemotherapy decision by providing a Recurrent Score (RS). RS measures the expression of 21 specific genes from tumor tissue, including Ki67. The primary aim of this study was to assess the agreement between Ki67_RNA obtained with Oncotype DX RS and Ki67_IHC. Other objectives were to analyze the association between the event free survival (EFS) and the expression level of Ki67_RNA; and association between RS and Ki67_RNA. Herein, we report a low agreement of 0.288 by Pearson correlation coefficient test between Ki67_IHC and Ki67_RNA in a cohort of 98 patients with early ER+/HER2- breast cancers. Moreover, Ki67_RNA^high tumors were significantly associated with the occurrence of events (p = 0.03). On the other hand, we did not find any association between Ki67_IHC and EFS (p = 0.26). We observed a low agreement between expression level of Ki67_RNA and Ki67 protein labelling by IHC. Unlike Ki67_IHC and independently of the RS, Ki67_RNA could have a prognostic value. It would be interesting to better assess the prognosis and predictive value of Ki67_RNA measured by qRT-PCR. The Ki67_RNA in medical routine could be a good support in countries where Oncotype DX is not accessible.

Recommendations from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer for multigene testing to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer, hormone receptor positive, HER-2 negative

Background

Predicting the risk of recurrence and response to chemotherapy in women with early breast cancer is crucial to optimise adjuvant treatment. Despite the common practice of using multigene tests to predict recurrence, existing recommendations are inconsistent. Our aim was to formulate healthcare recommendations for the question “Should multigene tests be used in women who have early invasive breast cancer, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy?”

Methods

The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guidelines Development Group (GDG), a multidisciplinary guideline panel including experts and three patients, developed recommendations informed by systematic reviews of the evidence. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used. Four multigene tests were evaluated: the 21-gene recurrence score (21-RS), the 70-gene signature (70-GS), the PAM50 risk of recurrence score (PAM50-RORS), and the 12-gene molecular score (12-MS).

Results

Five studies (2 marker-based design RCTs, two treatment interaction design RCTs and 1 pooled individual data analysis from observational studies) were included; no eligible studies on PAM50-RORS or 12-MS were identified and the GDG did not formulate recommendations for these tests.

Conclusions

The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 21-RS for lymph node-negative women (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence), recognising that benefits are probably larger in women at high risk of recurrence based on clinical characteristics. The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 70-GS for women at high clinical risk (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and recommends not using 70-GS in women at low clinical risk (strong recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

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.

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

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

Microarrays as Research Tools and Diagnostic Devices

Molecular diagnostics comprises a main analytical division in clinical laboratory diagnostics. The analysis of RNA or DNA helps to diagnose infectious diseases and identify genetic determined disorders or even cancer. Starting from mono-parametric tests within the last years, technologies have evolved that allow for the detection of many parameters in parallel, e.g., by using multiplex nucleic acid amplification techniques, microarrays, or next-generation sequencing technologies. The introduction of closed-tube systems as well as lab-on-a-chip devices further resulted in a higher automation degree with a reduced contamination risk. These applications complement or even stepwise replace classical methods in clinical microbiology like virus cultures, resistance determination, microscopic and metabolic analyses, as well as biochemical or immunohistochemical assays. In addition, novel diagnostic markers appear, like noncoding RNAs and miRNAs providing additional room for novel biomarkers.

This article provides an overview of microarrays as diagnostics devices and research tools. Introduced in 1995 for transcription analysis, microarrays are used today to detect several different biomolecules like DNA, RNA, miRNA, and proteins among others. Mainly used in research, some microarrays also found their way to clinical diagnostics. Further, closed lab-on-a-chip devices that use DNA microarrays as detection tools are discussed, and additionally, an outlook toward applications of next-generation sequencing tools in diagnostics will be given.