A UK prospective multicentre decision impact, decision conflict and economic evaluation of the 21-gene assay in women with node+ve, hormone receptor+ve, HER2-ve breast cancer

BACKGROUND

For a tumour profiling test to be of value, it needs to demonstrate that it is changing clinical decisions, improving clinical confidence, and of economic benefit. This trial evaluated the use of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® assay against these criteria in 680 women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative early breast cancer with 1-3 lymph nodes positive (LN+) in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

Prior to receipt of the Recurrence Score (RS) result, both the physician and the patient were asked to state their preference for or against chemotherapy and their level of confidence on a scale of 1-5. Following receipt of the RS result, the physician and patient were asked to make a final decision regarding chemotherapy and record their post-test level of confidence.

RESULTS

Receipt of the RS result led to a 51.5% (95% CI, 47.2-55.8%) reduction in chemotherapy, significantly increased the relative and absolute confidence for both physicians and patients and led to an estimated saving to the NHS of £787 per patient.

CONCLUSION

The use of the Oncotype DX assay fulfils the criteria of changing clinical decisions, improving confidence and saving money.

Clinical relevance of the 21-gene Recurrence Score® assay in treatment decisions for patients with node-positive breast cancer in the genomic era

In contemporary management of early-stage breast cancer, clinical decisions regarding adjuvant systemic therapy are increasingly made after considering both genomic assay results and clinico-pathologic features. Genomic information augments the prognostic information gleaned from clinico-pathologic features by providing risk estimates for distant recurrence and/or breast cancer-specific survival based on individual tumor biology. The 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score^® (RS) assay is validated to be prognostic and predictive of chemotherapy benefit in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer, regardless of nodal status. Because patients frequently are recommended to receive adjuvant chemotherapy based on the perceived poor prognosis related to a positive nodal status, inconsistent use of any prognostic genomic assay in the node-positive (N+) setting likely results in overtreatment of some patients, particularly those with a low genomic risk as defined by the RS test. This comprehensive review of the evidence for the RS assay in patients with N+, HR+, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer focuses on outcomes of patients with low RS results treated with hormonal therapy alone. Aggregate findings show that the RS assay consistently identifies patients with low genomic risk N+ breast cancer, in whom adjuvant chemotherapy can be avoided without adversely affecting outcomes. This evidence suggests that HR+ patients with limited nodal involvement and low RS results should discuss with their physicians the pros and cons of adjuvant chemotherapy at the time their treatment plans are being decided.

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.