Literature DB >> 19125125

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer?

.   

Abstract

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: The EGAPP Working Group (EWG) found insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against the use of tumor gene expression profiles to improve outcomes in defined populations of women with breast cancer. For one test, the EWG found preliminary evidence of potential benefit of testing results to some women who face decisions about treatment options (reduced adverse events due to low risk women avoiding chemotherapy), but could not rule out the potential for harm for others (breast cancer recurrence that might have been prevented). The evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the proposed uses of the tests. The EWG encourages further development and evaluation of these technologies. RATIONALE: The measurement of gene expression in breast tumor tissue is proposed as a way to estimate the risk of distant disease recurrence in order to provide additional information beyond current clinicopathological risk stratification and to influence decisions about treatment in order to improve health outcomes. Based on their review of the EGAPP-commissioned evidence report, Impact of Gene Expression Profiling Tests on Breast Cancer Outcomes and other data summaries, the EWG found no direct evidence linking tumor gene expression profiling of women with breast cancer to improved outcomes, and inadequate evidence to construct an evidence chain. However, further evaluation on the clinical utility of some tests and management algorithms, including well-designed randomized controlled trials, is warranted. ANALYTIC VALIDITY: Some data on technical performance of assays were identified for MammaPrint and Oncotype DX, though estimates of analytic sensitivity and specificity could not be made. Published performance data on the laboratory developed Quest H:I Test were limited. Overall, the EWG found the evidence to be inadequate. CLINICAL VALIDITY: The EWG found adequate evidence regarding the association of the Oncotype DX Recurrence Score with disease recurrence and adequate evidence for response to chemotherapy. The EWG found adequate evidence to characterize the association of MammaPrint with future metastases, but inadequate evidence to assess the added value to standard risk stratification, and could not determine the population to which the test would best apply. The evidence was inadequate to characterize the clinical validity of the Quest H:I Test. CLINICAL UTILITY: The EWG found no evidence regarding the clinical utility of the MammaPrint and Quest H:I Ratio tests, and inadequate evidence regarding Oncotype DX. These technologies have potential for both benefit and harm. CONTEXTUAL ISSUES: The EWG reviewed economic studies that used modeling to predict potential effects of using gene profiling, and judged the evidence inadequate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19125125      PMCID: PMC2743614          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181928f56

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  28 in total

1.  Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Soonmyung Paik; Gong Tang; Steven Shak; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Wanseop Kim; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Drew Watson; John Bryant; Joseph P Costantino; Charles E Geyer; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Tumor gene expression and prognosis in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes.

Authors:  Melody A Cobleigh; Bita Tabesh; Pincas Bitterman; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Mei-Lan Liu; Russell Borchik; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Michael G Walker; Steven Shak
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-10       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Luca Gianni; Milvia Zambetti; Kim Clark; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Jenny Wu; Gabriella Mariani; Jaime Rodriguez; Marialuisa Carcangiu; Drew Watson; Pinuccia Valagussa; Roman Rouzier; W Fraser Symmans; Jeffrey S Ross; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai; Steven Shak
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Predicting response to primary chemotherapy: gene expression profiling of paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue.

Authors:  Lida Mina; Sharon E Soule; Sunil Badve; Fredrick L Baehner; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Drew Watson; Mei-Lan Liu; George W Sledge; Steve Shak; Kathy D Miller
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  The HOXB13:IL17BR expression index is a prognostic factor in early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Xiao-Jun Ma; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Wilson Wang; Li Ding; Dennis C Sgroi; Richard A Bender; C Kent Osborne; D Craig Allred; Mark G Erlander
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Impact of gene expression profiling tests on breast cancer outcomes.

Authors:  Luigi Marchionni; Renee F Wilson; Spyridon S Marinopoulos; Antonio C Wolff; Giovanni Parmigiani; Eric B Bass; Steven N Goodman
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep)       Date:  2007-12

9.  Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  Bernard Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; John Bryant; Stewart Anderson; James Dignam; Edwin R Fisher; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004 Sep 4-10       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Steven Shak; Marlena K Jacobs; Angela Capra; Claire Alexander; Mylan Pho; Joffre Baker; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; James Hackett; Noelle T Blick; Deborah Greenberg; Louis Fehrenbacher; Bryan Langholz; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  63 in total

1.  How comparative effectiveness research can help advance 'personalized medicine' in cancer treatment.

Authors:  Scott D Ramsey; David Veenstra; Sean R Tunis; Louis Garrison; John J Crowley; Laurence H Baker
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Debating clinical utility.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; A-M Laberge; N Press
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Nurses transforming health care using genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Kathleen A Calzone; Ann Cashion; Suzanne Feetham; Jean Jenkins; Cynthia A Prows; Janet K Williams; Shu-Fen Wung
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.250

5.  Coverage policy development for personalized medicine: private payer perspectives on developing policy for the 21-gene assay.

Authors:  Julia R Trosman; Stephanie L Van Bebber; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 6.  Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics: a critical and systematic review.

Authors:  William B Wong; Josh J Carlson; Rahber Thariani; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Essential elements of personalized medicine.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Susan Brown Trinidad; Nancy A Press
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2013-12-08       Impact factor: 3.498

8.  Intrinsic subtypes from PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer cohort: differences by age, race, and tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Carol Sweeney; Philip S Bernard; Rachel E Factor; Marilyn L Kwan; Laurel A Habel; Charles P Quesenberry; Kaylynn Shakespear; Erin K Weltzien; Inge J Stijleman; Carole A Davis; Mark T W Ebbert; Adrienne Castillo; Lawrence H Kushi; Bette J Caan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities.

Authors:  Rena Conti; David L Veenstra; Katrina Armstrong; Lawrence J Lesko; Scott D Grosse
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Translational research in cancer genetics: the road less traveled.

Authors:  S D Schully; C B Benedicto; E M Gillanders; S S Wang; M J Khoury
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.