Multi-gene assays: effect on chemotherapy use, toxicity and cost in estrogen receptor-positive early stage breast cancer
Abstract
Aim: To assess multi-gene assay (MGA) effects on chemotherapy use, toxicities, recurrences, and costs in estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer. Methods: Meta-analysis performed using data from public databases. Results: Studies included 12,202 women. Relative to no testing, chemotherapy use was higher with 12-gene and 70-gene and lower with PAM50 (commercial) and 21-gene MGAs. Overall, 1643 distant recurrences occurred with no testing, declining by 231 (21-gene), 121 (70-gene), 54 (12-gene) and 94 (PAM50); only the 21-gene assay resulted in no risk of increasing the number of distant recurrences. Relative to ‘no testing’, total cost of care declined only with 21-gene MGA. Conclusion: MGAs differ in chemotherapy use and related outcomes for women with estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer.
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_file.docx)
- Download
- 381.57 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: breast cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 25(7), 1783–1785 (2018).
2.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer V2.2018 (2018). www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf.
• NCCN Guidelines v2.2018 provides recommendations for use of multi-gene assays in patients with early stage breast cancer.
3.
Swain SM, Whaley FS, Ewer MS. Congestive heart failure in patients treated with doxorubicin: a retrospective analysis of three trials. Cancer 97(11), 2869–2879 (2003).
4.
Ganz PA, Hussey MA, Moinpour CM et al. Late cardiac effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors treated on Southwest Oncology Group protocol s8897. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(8), 1223–1230 (2008).
5.
Azim HA Jr, de Azambuja E, Colozza M, Bines J, Piccart MJ. Long-term toxic effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 22(9), 1939–1947 (2011).
6.
Smith RE, Bryant J, DeCillis A, Anderson S. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Experience. Acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome after doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer: the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Experience. J. Clin. Oncol. 21(7), 1195–1204 (2003).
7.
Conroy SK, McDonald BC, Smith DJ et al. Alterations in brain structure and function in breast cancer survivors: effect of post-chemotherapy interval and relation to oxidative DNA damage. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 137(2), 493–502 (2013).
8.
Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101(21), 1446–1452 (2009).
9.
Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 24(23), 3726–3734 (2006).
•• Provides validation of the 21-gene Recurrence Score result from a cohort of patients in the NSABP B-20 trial (i.e., shows that patients with high-risk scores derived benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy).
10.
Cardoso F, van't Veer LJ, Bogaerts J et al. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(8), 717–729 (2016).
11.
Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices-overview: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med. Decis. Making 32(5), 667–677 (2012).
12.
Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB (Eds). Cost–Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2017).
13.
Levy J, Rosenberg M, Vanness D. A transparent and consistent approach to assess US outpatient drug costs for use in cost–effectiveness analyses. Value Health 21(6), 677–684 (2017).
14.
Dunn A, Grosse SD, Zuvekas SH. Adjusting health expenditures for inflation: a review of measures for health services research in the United States. Health Serv. Res. 53(1), 175–196 (2018).
15.
Martin M, Brase JC, Calvo L et al. Clinical validation of the EndoPredict test in node-positive, chemotherapy-treated ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients: results from the GEICAM 9906 trial. Breast Cancer Res. 16(2), R38 (2014).
16.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 8(5), 336–341 (2010).
17.
Higgins JPT, Green S (Eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2. The Cochrane Collaboration (2017). www.handbook.cochrane.org.
18.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Treatment of early breast cancer: A systematic overview of all available randomized trials of adjuvant endocrine and cytotoxic therapy volume 1: worldwide evidence 1985–1990. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1990).
19.
Chandler Y, Schechter CB, Jayasekera J et al. Cost–effectiveness of gene expression profile testing in community practice. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(6), 554–562 (2018).
20.
Ruddy KJ, Van Houten HK, Sangaralingham LR et al. Impact of treatment regimen on acute care use during and after adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 164(3), 515–525 (2017).
•• Review of records from over 8000 women with early stage breast cancer in order to assess acute care use in patients receiving various chemotherapy regimens over a 24-month period.
21.
Rosenstock AS, Niu J, Giordano SH, Zhao H, Wolff AC, Chavez-Macgregor M. Acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome after adjuvant chemotherapy: a population-based study among older breast cancer patients. Cancer 124(5), 899–906 (2018).
•• Determination of the risk of developing secondary cancers following adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.
22.
Hornberger BJ, Chien R, Krebs K, Hochheiser L. US insurance program's experience with a multigene assay for early-stage breast cancer. J. Oncol. Pract. 7(3 Suppl.), e38s–e45s (2011).
•• Assessement of the economic implication of the 21-gene assay in community practices from a US payer perspective.
23.
Wong W, Yim YM, Kim A et al. Assessment of costs associated with adverse events in patients with cancer. PLoS ONE 13(4), e0196007 (2018).
24.
Hurvitz S, Guerin A, Brammer M et al. Investigation of adverse-event-related costs for patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting. Oncologist 19(9), 901–908 (2014).
25.
Rashid N, Koh HA, Baca HC, Lin KJ, Malecha SE, Masaquel A. Economic burden related to chemotherapy-related adverse events in patients with metastatic breast cancer in an integrated healthcare system. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 8, 173–181 (2016).
26.
Blumen H, Fitch K, Polkus V. Comparison of treatment costs for breast cancer, by tumor stage and type of service. Am. Health Drug Benefits 9(1), 23–32 (2016).
27.
Irish W, Ryan M, Gache L, Gunnarsson C, Bell T, Shapiro M. Acute myeloid leukemia: a retrospective claims analysis of resource utilization and expenditures for newly diagnosed patients from first-line induction to remission and relapse. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 33(3), 519–527 (2017).
28.
Pan F, Peng S, Fleurence R, Linnehan JE, Knopf K, Kim E. Economic analysis of decitabine versus best supportive care in the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes from a US payer perspective. Clin. Ther. 32(14), 2444–2456 (2010).
29.
Chastek BB, Harley C, Kallich J et al. Health care costs for patients with cancer at the end of life. J. Oncol. Pract. 8(6), 75s–80s (2012).
30.
Kim H, Choi DH, Park W et al. Prognostic factors for survivals from first relapse in breast cancer patients: analysis of deceased patients. Radiat. Oncol. J. 31(4), 222–227 (2013).
31.
Ren Z, Li Y, Shen T, Hameed O, Siegal GP, Wei S. Prognostic factors in advanced breast cancer: Race and receptor status are significant after development of metastasis. Pathol. Res. Pract. 212(1), 24–30 (2016).
32.
Tsuji W, Teramukai S, Ueno M, Toi M, Inamoto T. Prognostic factors for survival after first recurrence in breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of 252 recurrent cases at a single institution. Breast Cancer 21(1), 86–95 (2014).
33.
Zeichner SB, Ambros T, Zaravinos J et al. Defining the survival benchmark for breast cancer patients with systemic relapse. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 9, 9–17 (2015).
34.
American Cancer Society. Cancer Statitistics Center (2018). https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org.
35.
Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Li CI et al. US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106(5), dju055 (2014).
36.
The World Bank. Population growth (annual %) (2018). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW.
37.
Howard BDH, Chernew ME, Abdelgawad T, Smith GL, Sollano J, Grabowski DC. New anticancer drugs associated with large increases in costs and life expectancy. Health Aff. (Millwood) 35(9), 1581–1587 (2016).
38.
Enright K, Grunfeld E, Yun L et al. Population-based assessment of emergency room visits and hospitalizations among women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. J. Oncol. Pract. 11(2), 126–132 (2015).
39.
Ademuyiwa FO, Miller A, O'Connor T et al. The effects of oncotype DX recurrence scores on chemotherapy utilization in a multi-institutional breast cancer cohort. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 126(3), 797–802 (2011).
40.
Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME et al. Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(18), 2218–2226 (2012).
41.
Wang S-Y, Dang W, Richman I, Mougalian SS, Evans SB, Gross CP. Cost–effectiveness analyses of the 21-gene assay in breast cancer: systematic review and critical appraisal. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(16), 1619–1627 (2018).
42.
Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 15(5), 615–625 (2004).
43.
Höfler M. Causal inference based on counterfactuals. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 5, 28 (2005).
44.
Weber AM, van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML. Assumption trade-offs when choosing identification strategies for pre-post treatment effect estimation: an illustration of a community-based intervention in Madagascar. J. Causal Inference 3(1), 109–130 (2016).
45.
Ramsey SD, Bansal A, Fedorenko CR et al. Financial insolvency as a risk factor for early mortality among patients with cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 980–986 (2016).
46.
Jagsi R, Ward KC, Abrahamse PH et al. Unmet need for clinician engagement regarding financial toxicity after diagnosis of breast cancer. Cancer 124(18), 3668–3676 (2018).
47.
Ekenga CC, Pérez M, Margenthaler JA et al. Early-stage breast cancer and employment participation after 2 years of follow-up: a comparison with age-matched controls. Cancer 124(9), 2026–2035 (2018).
48.
Jagsi R, Abrahamse PH, Lee KL et al. Treatment decisions and employment of breast cancer patients: results of a population-based survey. Cancer 123(24), 4791–4799 (2017).
49.
Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(2), 111–121 (2018).
•• Further validatation and refinement of the clinical usefulness of the 21-gene assay in a specified low-risk cohort of women with hormone-receptor–positive, HER2-negative, breast cancer enrolled in TAILORx.
50.
Plichta JK, Ren Y, Thomas SM et al. Implications for breast cancer restaging based on the 8th edition AJCC staging manual. Ann. Surg. (2018) (Epub ahead of print).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2019 Lou Hochheiser.
History
Received: 29 November 2018
Accepted: 24 December 2018
Published online: 21 January 2019
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Multi-gene assays: effect on chemotherapy use, toxicity and cost in estrogen receptor-positive early stage breast cancer. (2019) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2018-0137
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Flora Nguyen Van Long, Brigitte Poirier, Christine Desbiens, Marjorie Perron, Claudie Paquet, Cathie Ouellet, Caroline Diorio, Julie Lemieux, Hermann Nabi, First versus second-generation molecular profiling tests: How both can guide decision-making in early-stage hormone-receptor positive breast cancers?, Cancer Treatment Reviews, 10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.102909, 135, (102909), (2025).
- Torsten O Nielsen, Samuel C Y Leung, Nazia Riaz, Anna M Mulligan, Zuzana Kos, Anita Bane, Timothy J Whelan, Ki67 assessment protocol as an integral biomarker for avoiding radiotherapy in the LUMINA breast cancer trial, Histopathology, 10.1111/his.15032, 83, 6, (903-911), (2023).
- Vladislav Berdunov, Ewan Laws, Gebra Cuyun Carter, Roger Luo, Christy Russell, Sara Campbell, Jeremy Force, Yara Abdou, The budget impact of utilizing the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test from a US healthcare payer perspective, Journal of Medical Economics, 10.1080/13696998.2023.2235943, 26, 1, (973-990), (2023).
- Giuseppe Curigliano, Fatima Cardoso, Michael Gnant, Nadia Harbeck, Judy King, Anne-Vibeke Laenkholm, Frédérique Penault-Llorca, Aleix Prat, PROCURE European consensus on breast cancer multigene signatures in early breast cancer management, npj Breast Cancer, 10.1038/s41523-023-00510-9, 9, 1, (2023).
- Laia Bernet, Pablo Fernández, David Hardisson, Núria Chic, Tomás Pascual, Firmas génicas en el cáncer de mama, Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria, 10.1016/j.senol.2022.04.007, 35, (S67-S86), (2022).
- Henry L. Gomez, Juan E. Bargallo-Rocha, Roberto J. Billinghurst, Aníbal R. Núñez De Pierro, Federico A. Coló, Lisandro L. B. Gil, Carola Allemand, Ignacio L. McLean, Mauricio Lema-Medina, Fernando Herazo-Maya, Francisco J. Terrier, Raquel G. Cwilich, Mauricio Leon, Silvia G. Falcon, Roberto E. Castaño, Sergio C. Oliveira, Debbie M. Jakubowski, Calvin Chao, Practice-Changing Use of the 21-Gene Test for the Management of Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Latin America, JCO Global Oncology, 10.1200/GO.21.00008, 7, (1364-1373), (2021).
- André Mattar, Guilherme R. Fonseca, Murilo B. A. Romão, Jorge Y. Shida, Vilmar M. de Oliveira, Maria C. S. Bastos, Fabio Bagnoli, Jose F. Rinaldi, Monica M. Á. Stiepcich, Maria A. L. G. da Silva, Debbie M. Jakubowski, Calvin Chao, Sergio C. Oliveira, Luiz H. Gebrim, Substantial Reduction in Adjuvant Chemotherapy With the Use of the 21-Gene Test to Manage Early Breast Cancer in a Public Hospital in Brazil, JCO Global Oncology, 10.1200/GO.20.00609, 7, (1003-1011), (2021).
- Shuai Liu, Han Li, Qichen Zheng, Lu Yang, Meiyu Duan, Xin Feng, Fei Li, Lan Huang, Fengfeng Zhou, Survival Time Prediction of Breast Cancer Patients Using Feature Selection Algorithm Crystall, IEEE Access, 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3054823, 9, (24433-24445), (2021).
- Yahiya Y. Syed, Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score®: A Review of its Use in Early-Stage Breast Cancer, Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy, 10.1007/s40291-020-00482-7, 24, 5, (621-632), (2020).
- Laura Dormer, Introducing Volume 9 of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research , Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 10.2217/cer-2019-0160, 9, 1, (1-5), (2019).