Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013

Open Access 01-06-2013 | Review

Multigene assays and molecular markers in breast cancer: systematic review of health economic analyses

Authors: Roman Rouzier, Paolo Pronzato, Elisabeth Chéreau, Josh Carlson, Barnaby Hunt, William J. Valentine

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common female cancer and is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden. Multigene assays and molecular markers represent an opportunity to direct chemotherapy only to patients likely to have significant benefit. This systematic review examines published health economic analyses to assess the support for adjuvant therapy decision making. Literature searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and congress databases were carried out to identify economic evaluations of multigene assays and molecular markers published between 2002 and 2012. After screening and data extraction, study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. The review identified 29 publications that reported evaluations of two assays: Oncotype DX® and MammaPrint. Studies of both tests provided evidence that their routine use was cost saving or cost-effective versus conventional approaches. Benefits were driven by optimal allocation of adjuvant chemotherapy and reduction in chemotherapy utilization. Findings were sensitive to variation in the frequency of chemotherapy prescription, chemotherapy costs, and patients’ risk profiles. Evidence suggests that multigene assays are likely cost saving or cost-effective relative to current approaches to adjuvant therapy. They should benefit decision making in early-stage breast cancer in a variety of settings worldwide.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Coleman MP, Quaresma M, Berrino F et al (2008) Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD). Lancet Oncol 9(8):730–756PubMedCrossRef
3.
Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J (2010) Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10(5):553–566PubMedCrossRef
4.
Conner-Spady BL, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, Jacobs P, Stewart D (2005) A longitudinal prospective study of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl 36(3):251–259CrossRef
5.
Barron JJ, Quimbo R, Nikam PT, Amonkar MM (2008) Assessing the economic burden of breast cancer in a US managed care population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109(2):367–377PubMedCrossRef
6.
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multi-gene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826PubMedCrossRef
7.
van ‘t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415(6871):530–536PubMedCrossRef
8.
Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S et al (2006) Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(4):262–272PubMedCrossRef
9.
Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726–3734PubMedCrossRef
10.
Albain KS, Barlow WE, Ravdin PM et al (2009) Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374(9707):2055–2063PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dowsett M, Goldhirsch A, Hayes DF, Senn HJ, Wood W, Viale G (2007) International web-based consultation on priorities for translational breast cancer research. Breast Cancer Res 9(6):R81PubMedCrossRef
12.
Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, Panel members (2009) Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 20(8):1319–1329PubMedCrossRef
13.
Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(33):5287–5312PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
16.
17.
Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, Mercer MB, Hewlett J, Gerson N, Parker HL (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(4):980–991PubMed
18.
Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ et al (2003) Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm 9(1):53–61PubMed
19.
Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD et al (2003) Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care 41(1):32–44PubMedCrossRef
20.
Marino P, Siani C, Bertucci F et al (2011) Economic issues involved in integrating genomic testing into clinical care: the case of genomic testing to guide decision-making about chemotherapy for breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:401–409CrossRef
21.
Hornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH (2005) Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 11(5):313–324PubMed
22.
Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J (2007) Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 109(6):1011–1018PubMedCrossRef
23.
Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, Yoshibayashi H, Toi M (2008) Economic evaluation of 21-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112:175–187PubMedCrossRef
24.
Cosler LE, Lyman GH (2009) Economic analysis of gene expression profile data to guide adjuvant treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer. Cancer Investig 27(10):953–959CrossRef
25.
de Lima Lopes G, Chien R, Hornberger J. Cost-benefit analysis of a 21-gene recurrence score for early-stage breast cancer in Singapore. Presented at ISPOR 4th Asia-Pacific Conference, Phuket, September 2010
26.
Klang SH, Hammerman A, Liebermann N, Efrat N, Doberne J, Hornberger J (2010) Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an Israeli-managed health-care organization. Value Health 13(4):381–387PubMedCrossRef
27.
O’Leary B, Yoshizawa C, Foteff C, Chao C. Cost-effectiveness of the Oncotype DX assay in Australia: An exploratory analysis. Presented at ISPOR 4th Asia-Pacific Conference, Phuket, September 2010
28.
Tsoi DT, Inoue M, Kelly CM, Verma S, Pritchard KI (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist 15(5):457–465PubMedCrossRef
29.
de Lima Lopes G, Chien R, Hornberger JC (2011) Cost-benefit analysis of a 21-gene recurrence score for early-stage breast cancer in Singapore. Presented at 12th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference, St Gallen, 16–19 March 2011
30.
Hall PS, McCabe C, Stein RC, Cameron D (2012) Economic evaluation of genomic test-directed chemotherapy for early-stage lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(1):56–66PubMedCrossRef
31.
Holt SDH, Bennet H, Bertellli G, Valentine WJ, Phillips CJ (2011) Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the Oncotype DX® breast cancer assay in clinical practice in the UK. Poster presented at the 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 6–10 December 2011
32.
Hornberger J, Chien R, Krebs K, Hochheiser L (2011) US Insurance Program’s Experience With a multigene assay for early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 17(5(Spec No)):e194–e202PubMed
33.
Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Yamanaka T, Ishiguro H, Toi M (2011) Economic evaluation of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in lymph node-negative/positive, hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer based on Japanese validation study (JBCRG-TR03). Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(3):739–749PubMedCrossRef
34.
Lacey L, Chien R, Hornberger J (2011) Cost-utility of the 21-gene breast cancer assay (Oncotype DX®) in the Irish healthcare setting. Poster presented at the 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 6–10 December 2011
35.
Paulden M, Franek J, Pham B, Krahn M (2011) Gene expression profiling for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in women with early breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis of 1000 strategies for the provision of Adjuvant! Online, Oncotype DX and chemotherapy. Presented at ISPOR 16th Annual international Meeting, Baltimore, 21–25 May 2011
36.
Vanderlaan BF, Broder MS, Chang EY, Oratz R, Bentley TG (2011) Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 17(7):455–464PubMed
37.
Lamond NW, Skedgel C, Rayson D, Lethbridge L, Younis T (2012) Cost-utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(3):1115–1123PubMedCrossRef
38.
Madaras B, Rózsa P, Gerencsér Z et al (2012) The impact of chemotherapeutic regimens on the cost-utility analysis of Oncotype DX Assay. Presented at EBCC 8, Vienna, 21–24 March 2012
39.
Wilson E, McDonnell D, Gullo G et al (2012) Economic Impact of Oncotype DX assay in axillary node negative breast cancer, (AXN-BC) with positive hormone receptor (REC+) and normal HER-2 (HER2−). Presented at ESMO 2010, Milan, 8–12 October 2012
40.
Hassan S, Mittmann N (2011) A cost benefit analysis of the 21-gene breast cancer assay within a Canadian healthcare system. Presented at 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting, Chicago, 3–7 June 2011
41.
Lacey L, Hornberger J (2011) Economic evaluation of Onctoype DX to target chemotherapy use in lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. ISPOR 13th Annual European conference, Prague, 6–9 November 2011
42.
Ragaz J, Wilson KS, Wong H, Muraca G, Hryniuk W, Bajdik C (2011) Molecular classification with 21 Gene Assay (Oncotype DX®) Shows in 196,967 ER positive patients high frequency of low recurrence. Presented at Poster presented at the 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 6–10 December 2011
43.
Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, Linden HM et al (2005) Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med 7(6):380–389PubMedCrossRef
44.
Chen E, Tong KB, Malin JL (2010) Cost-effectiveness of 70-gene MammaPrint signature in node-negative breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 16(12):e333–e342PubMed
45.
Retèl VP, Joore MA, Knauer M, Linn SC, Hauptmann M, Harten WH (2010) Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant Online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 46(8):1382–1391PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, Toi M (2012) Economic evaluation of the 70-gene prognosis-signature (MammaPrint®) in hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2-negative early stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(2):759–768PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zarca D, Stork-Sloots L, de Snoo F, Brink G, Dervaux Y, Boubli L (2009) French cost effectiveness study of the MammaPrint 70-gene signature in early-stage breast cancer patients. Presented at ECCO15, Berlin, Germany, 20–24 September 2009
48.
Retèl VP, Joore MA, van Harten WH (2012) Head-to-head comparison of the 70-gene signature versus the 21-gene assay: cost-effectiveness and the effect of compliance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131(2):627–636PubMedCrossRef
49.
Yang M, Rajan S, Issa AM (2012) Cost-effectiveness of gene expression profiling for early stage breast cancer: a decision-analytic model. Cancer 118(20):5163–5170PubMedCrossRef
50.
Buyse M, Loi S (2006) van’t Veer L, et al; TRANSBIG Consortium. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17):1183–1192PubMedCrossRef
51.
Reed SD, Lyman GH (2012) Cost effectiveness of gene expression profiling for early stage breast cancer: a decision-analytic model. Cancer 118(24):6298–6299PubMedCrossRef
52.
Thomassen M, Tan Q, Eiriksdottir F, Bak M, Cold S, Kruse TA (2007) Comparison of gene sets for expression profiling: prediction of metastasis from low-malignant breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13:5355–5360PubMedCrossRef
53.
Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, Weigelt B, Nuyten DS, Nobel AB, van’t Veer LJ, Perou CM (2006) Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355(6):560–569PubMedCrossRef
54.
Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C et al (2010) Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC Study. J Clin Oncol 28:1829–1834PubMedCrossRef
55.
Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S et al (2008) Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol 26:4063–4071PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Multigene assays and molecular markers in breast cancer: systematic review of health economic analyses
Authors
Roman Rouzier
Paolo Pronzato
Elisabeth Chéreau
Josh Carlson
Barnaby Hunt
William J. Valentine
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2559-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013 Go to the issue

Epidemiology

Association of progesterone receptor gene (PGR) variants and breast cancer risk in African American women

Clinical Trial

Reducing false-positive biopsies: a pilot study to reduce benign biopsy rates for BI-RADS 4A/B assessments through testing risk stratification and new thresholds for intervention

Brief Report

Unjustified prescribing of CYP2D6 inhibiting SSRIs in women treated with tamoxifen

Preclinical study

The presence of programmed death 1 (PD-1)-positive tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes is associated with poor prognosis in human breast cancer

Clinical trial

HER3 status by immunohistochemistry is correlated with poor prognosis in hormone receptor-negative breast cancer patients

Clinical Trial

Serum thymidine kinase activity compared with CA 15-3 in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer within a randomized trial
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits