1
|
Harnan S, Tappenden P, Cooper K, Stevens J, Bessey A, Rafia R, Ward S, Wong R, Stein RC, Brown J. Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2020; 23:1-328. [PMID: 31264581 DOI: 10.3310/hta23300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sue Harnan
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Paul Tappenden
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Katy Cooper
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - John Stevens
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Alice Bessey
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Rachid Rafia
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Sue Ward
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Ruth Wong
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Robert C Stein
- University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.,Research Department of Oncology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Janet Brown
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Petkov VI, Miller DP, Howlader N, Gliner N, Howe W, Schussler N, Cronin K, Baehner FL, Cress R, Deapen D, Glaser SL, Hernandez BY, Lynch CF, Mueller L, Schwartz AG, Schwartz SM, Stroup A, Sweeney C, Tucker TC, Ward KC, Wiggins C, Wu XC, Penberthy L, Shak S. Breast-cancer-specific mortality in patients treated based on the 21-gene assay: a SEER population-based study. NPJ Breast Cancer 2016; 2:16017. [PMID: 28721379 PMCID: PMC5515329 DOI: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.17] [Citation(s) in RCA: 116] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2016] [Revised: 05/02/2016] [Accepted: 05/13/2016] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The 21-gene Recurrence Score assay is validated to predict recurrence risk and chemotherapy benefit in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) invasive breast cancer. To determine prospective breast-cancer-specific mortality (BCSM) outcomes by baseline Recurrence Score results and clinical covariates, the National Cancer Institute collaborated with Genomic Health and 14 population-based registries in the the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program to electronically supplement cancer surveillance data with Recurrence Score results. The prespecified primary analysis cohort was 40-84 years of age, and had node-negative, HR+, HER2-negative, nonmetastatic disease diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2011 in the entire SEER population, and Recurrence Score results (N=38,568). Unadjusted 5-year BCSM were 0.4% (n=21,023; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.3-0.6%), 1.4% (n=14,494; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7%), and 4.4% (n=3,051; 95% CI, 3.4-5.6%) for Recurrence Score <18, 18-30, and ⩾31 groups, respectively (P<0.001). In multivariable analysis adjusted for age, tumor size, grade, and race, the Recurrence Score result predicted BCSM (P<0.001). Among patients with node-positive disease (micrometastases and up to three positive nodes; N=4,691), 5-year BCSM (unadjusted) was 1.0% (n=2,694; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0%), 2.3% (n=1,669; 95% CI, 1.3-4.1%), and 14.3% (n=328; 95% CI, 8.4-23.8%) for Recurrence Score <18, 18-30, ⩾31 groups, respectively (P<0.001). Five-year BCSM by Recurrence Score group are reported for important patient subgroups, including age, race, tumor size, grade, and socioeconomic status. This SEER study represents the largest report of prospective BCSM outcomes based on Recurrence Score results for patients with HR+, HER2-negative, node-negative, or node-positive breast cancer, including subgroups often under-represented in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Frederick L Baehner
- Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA
- University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Rosemary Cress
- Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Dennis Deapen
- University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Sally L Glaser
- Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, USA
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Charles F Lynch
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Lloyd Mueller
- Connecticut Tumor Registry, Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, CT, USA
| | - Ann G Schwartz
- Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - Stephen M Schwartz
- Cancer Surveillance System, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Antoinette Stroup
- Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, USA
- Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Carol Sweeney
- Utah Cancer Registry, Department of Internal Medicine, and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Thomas C Tucker
- University of Kentucky, Markey Cancer Center, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | | - Charles Wiggins
- New Mexico Tumor Registry, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA
| | - Xiao-Cheng Wu
- Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|