Literature DB >> 23000081

Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes.

Scott D Ramsey1, William E Barlow, Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo, Sean Tunis, Laurence Baker, John Crowley, Patricia Deverka, David Veenstra, Gabriel N Hortobagyi.   

Abstract

Women with breast cancer involving the lymph nodes are typically treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Retrospective evaluations of prior studies suggest that the 21-gene test (OncotypeDX®), may allow identification of those who can safely avoid chemotherapy. To better understand the performance of the 21-gene test, the RxPONDER (Rx for Positive Node, Endocrine Responsive breast cancer) study was designed, a multicenter Phase III trial randomizing women with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer involving 1-3 lymph nodes and a 21-gene assay recurrence score (RS) of 25 or less to endocrine therapy alone versus chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. As one of the first large-scale comparative-effectiveness studies in oncology, RxPONDER utilized an external stakeholder group to help inform the design of the trial. Stakeholders met with representatives of SWOG over several months through a structured discussion process. The stakeholder engagement process resulted in several changes being made to the trial design. In addition, stakeholder representatives from the health insurance industry provided guidance regarding a mechanism whereby the costs of OncotypeDX® would be paid by the majority of health insurers as part of the trial. The process may serve as a template for future studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of genomic tests in oncology, particularly those that are conducted within cooperative clinical trials groups.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23000081      PMCID: PMC3525786          DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.09.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  17 in total

1.  How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies.

Authors:  Ari Hoffman; Russ Montgomery; Wade Aubry; Sean R Tunis
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Anatomy and biology: two complementary sides of breast cancer prognostication.

Authors:  Lajos Pusztai
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure.

Authors:  Sean R Tunis; Joshua Benner; Mark McClellan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan; Simon Eckermann
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine.

Authors:  Harold C Sox; Sheldon Greenfield
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement.

Authors:  Patricia A Deverka; Danielle C Lavallee; Priyanka J Desai; Laura C Esmail; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra; Sean R Tunis
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.744

7.  Economic evaluation of genomic test-directed chemotherapy for early-stage lymph node-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter S Hall; Christopher McCabe; Robert C Stein; David Cameron
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Randomized phase III clinical trial designs for targeted agents.

Authors:  Antje Hoering; Mike Leblanc; John J Crowley
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007).

Authors:  William B Wong; Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Louis P Garrison; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 2.226

10.  Value of information analyses of economic randomized controlled trials: the treatment of intermittent claudication.

Authors:  Bas Groot Koerkamp; Sandra Spronk; Theo Stijnen; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  48 in total

1.  Propensity score analysis of the prognostic value of genomic assays for breast cancer in diverse populations using the National Cancer Data Base.

Authors:  Abiola Ibraheem; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dezheng Huo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice.

Authors:  Young Chandler; Clyde B Schechter; Jinani Jayasekera; Aimee Near; Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Charles E Phelps; G Thomas Ray; Tracy A Lieu; Scott Ramsey; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  21-Gene recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Gulisa Turashvili; Joanne F Chou; Edi Brogi; Monica Morrow; Maura Dickler; Larry Norton; Clifford Hudis; Hannah Y Wen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  Biomarkers and sustainable innovation in cardiovascular drug development: lessons from near and far afield.

Authors:  Russell M Medford; T Forcht Dagi; Robert S Rosenson; Margaret K Offermann
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.113

5.  Oncology comparative effectiveness research: a multistakeholder perspective on principles for conduct and reporting.

Authors:  Scott D Ramsey; Sean D Sullivan; Shelby D Reed; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Ken Schaecher; Rahul Dhanda; Debra Patt; Kelly Pendergrass; Mark Walker; Jennifer Malin; Lee Schwartzberg; Kurt Neumann; Elaine Yu; Arliene Ravelo; Art Small
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-05-06

6.  Adoption of Gene Expression Profiling for Breast Cancer in US Oncology Practice for Women Younger Than 65 Years.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Calvin Chao; Huei-Ting Tsai; Chunfu Liu; Bola F Ekezue; Nandini Selvam; Larry G Kessler; Marc D Schwartz; Tania Lobo; Arnold L Potosky
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 11.908

7.  Algorithms for prediction of the Oncotype DX recurrence score using clinicopathologic data: a review and comparison using an independent dataset.

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

8.  Population-based study of the effect of gene expression profiling on adjuvant chemotherapy use in breast cancer patients under the age of 65 years.

Authors:  Arnold L Potosky; Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Huei-Ting Tsai; Calvin Chao; Chunfu Liu; Bola F Ekezue; Nandini Selvam; Larry G Kessler; Yingjun Zhou; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  Biomarker enrichment strategies: matching trial design to biomarker credentials.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  Breast carcinoma with an Oncotype Dx recurrence score <18: Rate of distant metastases in a large series with clinical follow-up.

Authors:  Hannah Y Wen; Melissa Krystel-Whittemore; Sujata Patil; Fresia Pareja; Zenica L Bowser; Maura N Dickler; Larry Norton; Monica Morrow; Clifford A Hudis; Edi Brogi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.