PURPOSE: New evidence is available regarding the utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in guiding chemotherapy use for node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. We applied this evidence in a decision-analytic model to re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the assay. METHODS: We cross-classified patients by clinicopathologic characteristics from the Adjuvant! risk index and by recurrence score risk group. For non-recurrence score-guided treatment, we assumed patients receiving hormonal therapy alone had low-risk characteristics and patients receiving chemotherapy and hormonal therapy had higher-risk characteristics. For recurrence score-guided treatment, we assigned chemotherapy probabilities conditional on recurrence score risk group and clinicopathologic characteristics. RESULTS: An estimated 40.4% of patients in the recurrence score-guided strategy and 47.3% in the non-recurrence score-guided strategy were expected to receive chemotherapy. The incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.28) with the recurrence score-guided strategy. Lifetime medical costs to the health system were $2,692 ($1,546-$3,821) higher with the recurrence score-guided strategy, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $16,677/quality-adjusted life-year ($7,613-$37,219). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $10,788/quality-adjusted life-year ($6,840-$30,265). CONCLUSION: The findings provide supportive evidence for the economic value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.
PURPOSE: New evidence is available regarding the utility of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in guiding chemotherapy use for node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. We applied this evidence in a decision-analytic model to re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the assay. METHODS: We cross-classified patients by clinicopathologic characteristics from the Adjuvant! risk index and by recurrence score risk group. For non-recurrence score-guided treatment, we assumed patients receiving hormonal therapy alone had low-risk characteristics and patients receiving chemotherapy and hormonal therapy had higher-risk characteristics. For recurrence score-guided treatment, we assigned chemotherapy probabilities conditional on recurrence score risk group and clinicopathologic characteristics. RESULTS: An estimated 40.4% of patients in the recurrence score-guided strategy and 47.3% in the non-recurrence score-guided strategy were expected to receive chemotherapy. The incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.28) with the recurrence score-guided strategy. Lifetime medical costs to the health system were $2,692 ($1,546-$3,821) higher with the recurrence score-guided strategy, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $16,677/quality-adjusted life-year ($7,613-$37,219). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $10,788/quality-adjusted life-year ($6,840-$30,265). CONCLUSION: The findings provide supportive evidence for the economic value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in 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
Authors: Michael Drummond; Marco Barbieri; John Cook; Henry A Glick; Joanna Lis; Farzana Malik; Shelby D Reed; Frans Rutten; Mark Sculpher; Johan Severens Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-01-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Gong Tang; Steven Shak; Soonmyung Paik; Stewart J Anderson; Joseph P Costantino; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 4.872
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
Authors: Catherine M Kelly; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Giampaolo Bianchini; Jennifer K Litton; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Thompson; Douglas C A Taylor; Eduardo L Montoya; Eric P Winer; Stephen E Jones; Milton C Weinstein Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: L Masucci; S Torres; A Eisen; M Trudeau; I Tyono; H Saunders; K W Chan; W Isaranuwatchai Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Michael R Harowicz; Timothy J Robinson; Michaela A Dinan; Ashirbani Saha; Jeffrey R Marks; P Kelly Marcom; Maciej A Mazurowski Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: A García Fernández; C Chabrera; M García Font; M Fraile; J M Lain; S Gónzalez; I Barco; C González; J Torres; M Piqueras; L Cirera; E Veloso; A Pessarrodona; N Giménez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Susanne B Haga; Nancy M Allen LaPointe; Alex Cho; Shelby D Reed; Rachel Mills; Jivan Moaddeb; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Megan C Roberts; Morris Weinberger; Stacie B Dusetzina; Michaela A Dinan; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Lisa A Carey; Melissa A Troester; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Megan C Roberts; Amy Bryson; Morris Weinberger; Stacie B Dusetzina; Michaela A Dinan; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Jeanette K Birnbaum; Foluso O Ademuyiwa; Josh J Carlson; Leslie Mallinger; Mark W Mason; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 2.583