Cost-utility analysis of 21-gene assay for node-positive early breast cancer

Impact of the 21-gene expression assay on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes in breast cancer with one to three positive lymph nodes

BACKGROUND

To assess the practice patterns of the recurrence score (RS) based on the 21-gene expression assay on adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations and survival outcomes in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/HER2- breast cancer (BC) with one to three positive lymph nodes (N1).

METHODS

We included patients with T1-2N1M0 and ER+/HER2- BC diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Oncotype DX Database. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed.

RESULTS

We included 35,137 patients in this study. There were 21.2% of patients who had RS testing in 2010, which was significantly increased to 36.8% in 2015 (P < 0.001). Performance of the 21-gene testing was associated with older age, lower tumor grade, T1 stage, lower number of positive lymph nodes, and progesterone receptor-positive disease (all P < 0.05). In those without 21-gene testing, age was the main factor significantly related to the receipt of chemotherapy, whereas RS was the main factor significantly related to chemotherapy receipt in those with 21-gene testing. The probability of chemotherapy receipt in those without 21-gene testing was 64.1% and was decreased to 30.8% in those with 21-gene testing. On multivariate prognostic analysis, the performance of 21-gene testing was associated with better BCSS (P < 0.001) and OS (P < 0.001) compared with those without 21-gene testing. Similar results were found after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSIONS

The 21-gene expression assay is frequently and increasingly used for chemotherapy decision-making in ER+/HER2- BC with N1 disease. Performance of the 21-gene testing is associated with improved survival outcomes. Our study supports the routine use of 21-gene testing in the clinical practice of this population.

Impact of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay on Treatment Decisions and Cost in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Study in Quebec

BACKGROUND

The 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score (RS) assay, "the assay", has led to a paradigm shift for patients with hormone receptor-positive, node-negative early breast cancer and is emerging as an important tool to assist physician-patient decisions in foregoing chemotherapy in node-positive patients. We wanted to better understand the impact of the RS assay in node-positive patients upon physician treatment decisions and treatment cost in Quebec, Canada.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, prospective observational trial for Estrogen/Progesterone Receptor (ER/PR)- positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes. Physicians completed a questionnaire indicating treatment choice prior to and post availability of RS results. The primary endpoint was change in the physician's recommendation for chemotherapy prior to and post assay results. Secondary endpoints included change in physician's expressed level of confidence, and changes in estimated cost of recommended treatments prior to and post assay results.

RESULTS

For the entire cohort, physician recommendation for chemotherapy was reduced by an absolute 67.1% by knowledge of the RS assay result (P < .0001). Physician recommendation of chemotherapy was decreased by 75.9% for patients RS result <14 (P < .0001); and 67.5% for patients with RS result 14-25 (P < .0001). Changes in treatment recommendations were associated with an overall reduction in cost by 73.7% per patient, and after incorporating the cost of the RS test, a cost benefit of $823 CAN at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Altogether, we established that the assay led to a two-third reduction in the use of chemotherapy, and was a cost-effective approach for hormone receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test in Node-Negative Early Breast Cancer

Background

The 21-gene assay (the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score^® test) is a validated multigene assay which produces the Recurrence Score^® result (RS) to inform decisions on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), hormone receptor positive (HR+) early invasive breast cancer. A model-based economic evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay against the use of clinical risk tools alone based on the latest evidence from prospective studies.

Methods

The proportion of patients assigned to chemotherapy conditional on their RS result was obtained from retrospective data from the Clalit registry. The probability of distant recurrence with endocrine and chemo-endocrine therapy conditional on RS result was obtained from TAILORx and NSABP B-20 trials. The cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay compared to using clinical risk tools alone was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon.

Results

The 21-gene assay was more effective (0.17 more quality-adjusted life years) at a lower cost (-£519) over a lifetime compared to clinical risk alone. The model results were sensitive to assumptions around the magnitude of benefit of chemotherapy in the high RS result subgroup. Other assumptions underpinning the model, such as the proportion of patients assigned to chemotherapy in the low and mid-range RS result subgroups and long-term distant recurrence probabilities, had a smaller impact on the results.

Conclusion

The analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay is sensitive to assumptions for chemotherapy sparing for patients with RS 0–25 whose outcomes with endocrine therapy are no worse compared to chemotherapy-assigned patients, and a chemotherapy benefit in the RS 26–100 group. Future studies need to incorporate a wider set of tumour profiling tests other than the 21-gene assay to allow a direct comparison of their cost-effectiveness.

Promoter methylation of transient receptor potential melastatin-related 7 (TRPM7) predicts a better prognosis in patients with Luminal A breast cancers

Breast cancer is the most common female tumors arising worldwide, and genetic and epigenetic events are constantly accumulated in breast tumorigenesis. The melastatin-related transient receptor potential 7 channel (TRPM7) is a nonselective cation channel, mainly maintaining Zn²⁺, Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ homeostasis. It is also involved in regulating proliferation and migration in various cancers including breast cancer. However, epigenetic alterations (such as promoter methylation) of TRPM7 and their correlation with clinical outcomes in breast cancer patients remain largely unclear. In this study, we found that TRPM7 was highly expressed in the luminal A subtype of breast cancers but no other subtypes compared with GTEx (Genotype-Tissue Expression Rad) or normal samples by analyzing the TCGA database. Correspondingly, TRPM7 was methylated in 42.7% (93 of 219) of breast cancers. Further studies found that promoter methylation of TRPM7 were significantly associated with better clinical outcomes in breast cancer patients, especially in the Luminal A subtype. Besides, methylated TRPM7 was correlated with less number of metastatic lymph nodes and longer local failure free survival time in this subtype. In summary, our data indicate that promoter methylation of TRPM7 may predict poor prognosis in patients with luminal A breast cancer.

The Role of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score® Assay in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Node-Positive Breast Cancer: The Canadian Experience

The management of patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has changed dramatically with use of the 21-gene Recurrence Score® (RS) Assay. While the utility of the assay was initially demonstrated among node-negative patients, recent studies have also demonstrated the assay's prognostic and predictive value in node-positive patients. In Canada, the RS assay is reimbursed by provincial health insurance plans, but not all provinces have approved the use of the assay for patients with node-positive disease. Here, we provide an overview of the clinical factors that influence physician recommendation of the RS assay and, alternatively, the impact of the RS assay on patient treatment decisions in Canada. We performed a comprehensive review of the impact of the assay upon physician treatment decisions and cost in node-positive breast cancer patients within Canada and other countries. Furthermore, we evaluated biomarkers that can predict the RS result, in addition to other genomic assays that predict recurrence risk among node-positive patients. Overall, the 21-gene RS assay was shown to be a cost-effective tool that significantly reduced the use of chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer patients in Canada.

Master Protocols for Precision Medicine in Oncology: Overcoming Methodology of Randomized Clinical Trials

Randomized clinical trials are considered the milestones of clinical research in oncology, and guided the development and approval of new compounds so far. In the last few years, however, molecular and genomic profiling led to a change of paradigm in therapeutic algorithms of many cancer types, with the spread of different biomarker-driven therapies (or targeted therapies). This scenario of "personalized medicine" revolutionized therapeutic strategies and the methodology of the supporting clinical research. New clinical trial designs are emerging to answer to the unmet clinical needs related to the development of these targeted therapies, overcoming the "classical" structure of randomized studies. Innovative trial designs able to evaluate more than one treatment in the same group of patients or many groups of patients with the same treatment (or both) are emerging as a possible future standard in clinical trial methodology. These are identified as "master protocols", and include umbrella, basket and platform trials. In this review, we described the main characteristics of these new trial designs, focusing on the opportunities and limitations of their use in the era of personalized medicine.

Practice-Changing Use of the 21-Gene Test for the Management of Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Latin America

PURPOSE

We present a physician survey of the impact of 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score test results on treatment decisions in clinical practice in Latin America.

METHODS

This prospective survey enrolled consecutive patients at 14 sites in Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru who had routine 21-gene testing. Physician surveys captured patient and tumor characteristics and treatment decisions before and after 21-gene test results. The survey spanned the period before and after Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) results reported (June 2018). Overall net percent change in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations was estimated, and asymptotic 95% CIs with continuity correction were calculated. The proportion with a change between pretest treatment recommendation and actual treatment received was calculated overall and by Recurrence Score groups per TAILORx.

RESULTS

Between March 2015 and December 2019, the survey was completed for 647 patients; 20% were node-positive. The mean patient age was 54 years (24-85 years); 55% were postmenopausal; 17%, 63%, and 20% had grade 1, 2, and 3 tumors, respectively; and 30% had tumors > 2 cm. Recurrence Score (RS) results were as follows: 20% RS 0-10, 56% RS 11-25, and 24% RS 26-100. Overall, chemotherapy recommendations fell by a relative proportion of 39% (95% CI, 33.4 to 44.3) after 21-gene testing (33% decrease in node-negative and 55% decrease in node-positive). Among node-negative patients, the relative decrease in chemotherapy recommendations was 28% (95% CI, 18.9 to 39.5) before TAILORx and 36% (95% CI, 28.4 to 43.7) after.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this large survey of 21-gene test practice patterns was the first conducted in Latin America and showed the relevance of 21-gene testing in low- and medium-resource countries to minimize chemotherapy overuse and underuse in breast cancer. The results showed substantial reductions in chemotherapy use overall—especially after TAILORx reported—indicating the practice-changing potential of that study.

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.