Literature DB >> 24236631

Is a comparative clinical trial for breast cancer tumor markers to monitor disease recurrence warranted? A value of information analysis.

Rahber Thariani1, Norah Lynn Henry, Scott D Ramsey, David K Blough, Bill Barlow, Julie R Gralow, David L Veenstra.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer tumor markers are used by some clinicians to screen for disease recurrence risk. Since there is limited evidence of benefit, additional research may be warranted. AIM: To assess the potential value of a randomized clinical trial of breast tumor marker testing in routine follow-up of high-risk, stage II-III breast cancer survivors. MATERIALS &amp; <br> METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model of tumor marker testing plus standard surveillance every 3-6 months for 5 years. The expected value of sample information was calculated using probabilistic simulations and was a function of: the probability of selecting the optimal monitoring strategy with current versus future information; the impact of choosing the nonoptimal strategy; and the size of the population affected. <br> RESULTS: The value of information for a randomized clinical trial involving 9000 women was US$214 million compared with a cost of US$30-60 million to conduct such a trial. The probability of making an alternate, nonoptimal decision and choosing testing versus no testing was 32% with current versus future information from the trial. The impact of a nonoptimal decision was US$2150 and size of population impacted over 10 years was 308,000. The value of improved information on overall survival was US$105 million, quality of life US$37 million and test performance US$71 million. <br> CONCLUSION: Conducting a randomized clinical trial of breast cancer tumor markers appears to offer a good societal return on investment. Retrospective analyses to assess test performance and evaluation of patient quality of life using tumor markers may also offer valuable areas of research. However, alternative investments may offer even better returns in investments and, as such, the trial concept deserves further study as part of an overall research-portfolio evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24236631      PMCID: PMC4018420          DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.15

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Eff Res        ISSN: 2042-6305            Impact factor:   1.744


  43 in total

1.  Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CA27.29 and CA15.3 in primary breast cancer.

Authors:  M Gion; R Mione; A E Leon; R Dittadi
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  The value of information and optimal clinical trial design.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan; Eleanor M Pinto
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  John Hornberger; Leon E Cosler; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule?

Authors:  R Scott Braithwaite; David O Meltzer; Joseph T King; Douglas Leslie; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Use of Truquant BR radioimmunoassay for early detection of breast cancer recurrence in patients with stage II and stage III disease.

Authors:  D W Chan; R A Beveridge; H Muss; H A Fritsche; G Hortobagyi; R Theriault; D Kiang; B J Kennedy; M Evelegh
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Treatment of disease-negative but mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen-positive breast cancer patients with tamoxifen: preliminary results of a prospective controlled randomized trial.

Authors:  F Kovner; O Merimsky; M Hareuveni; N Wigler; S Chaitchik
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.333

7.  Population-based estimate of the prevalence of HER-2 positive breast cancer tumors for early stage patients in the US.

Authors:  Kathleen A Cronin; Linda C Harlan; Kevin W Dodd; Jeffrey S Abrams; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer Invest       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.176

Review 8.  The GIVIO trial on the impact of follow-up care on survival and quality of life in breast cancer patients. Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care Evaluation.

Authors:  A Liberati
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. A decision-analysis model.

Authors:  B E Hillner; T J Smith
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-01-17       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 10-year analysis of the ATAC trial.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Mitch Dowsett; John F Forbes
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  1 in total

1.  Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach.

Authors:  A C Bouman; A J ten Cate-Hoek; B L T Ramaekers; M A Joore
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.