Amalia M Issa1, Vivek S Chaudhari, Gary E Marchant. 1. Program in Personalized Medicine and Targeted Therapeutics, University of the Sciences, 600 South 43rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multigene predictors are being used increasingly in early-stage breast cancer patients for prediction and prognosis. However, one consequence of the increased use of multigene predictors, and the heightened efforts toward their incorporation into routine clinical practice, is the potential for future malpractice litigation. It is, therefore, important to ascertain the strength of the evidence for using the different commercially available multigene predictor assays clinically. We evaluated the literature for evidence of clinical validity of four currently available gene signatures and to assess the influence of the 21-gene-expression assay on changes in treatment recommendations. METHODS: A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature from January 2002 to March 2014 for multigene predictor assays was carried out, and a meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The adjusted Cox hazard ratio average for studies that met the eligibility criteria was 3.538 (95% CI: 1.513-8.469). The 21-gene signature showed the highest stability in the estimation of likelihood of distant risk of recurrence. Using the recurrence scores resulted in changes in treatment recommendations in 31.8% of all patients in the studies. CONCLUSION: This study may provide insight about the use of multigene predictors in clinical practice for prediction and prognosis of breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE: Multigene predictors are being used increasingly in early-stage breast cancerpatients for prediction and prognosis. However, one consequence of the increased use of multigene predictors, and the heightened efforts toward their incorporation into routine clinical practice, is the potential for future malpractice litigation. It is, therefore, important to ascertain the strength of the evidence for using the different commercially available multigene predictor assays clinically. We evaluated the literature for evidence of clinical validity of four currently available gene signatures and to assess the influence of the 21-gene-expression assay on changes in treatment recommendations. METHODS: A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature from January 2002 to March 2014 for multigene predictor assays was carried out, and a meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The adjusted Cox hazard ratio average for studies that met the eligibility criteria was 3.538 (95% CI: 1.513-8.469). The 21-gene signature showed the highest stability in the estimation of likelihood of distant risk of recurrence. Using the recurrence scores resulted in changes in treatment recommendations in 31.8% of all patients in the studies. CONCLUSION: This study may provide insight about the use of multigene predictors in clinical practice for prediction and prognosis of breast cancer.
Authors: Stella Mook; Marjanka K Schmidt; Giuseppe Viale; Giancarlo Pruneri; Inge Eekhout; Arno Floore; Annuska M Glas; Jan Bogaerts; Fatima Cardoso; Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Emiel T Rutgers; Laura J Van't Veer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-07-27 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Foluso O Ademuyiwa; Austin Miller; Tracey O'Connor; Stephen B Edge; Mangesh A Thorat; George W Sledge; Ellis Levine; Sunil Badve Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Annuska M Glas; Arno Floore; Leonie J M J Delahaye; Anke T Witteveen; Rob C F Pover; Niels Bakx; Jaana S T Lahti-Domenici; Tako J Bruinsma; Marc O Warmoes; René Bernards; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Laura J Van't Veer Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2006-10-30 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: J A Davidson; I Cromwell; S L Ellard; C Lohrisch; K A Gelmon; T Shenkier; D Villa; H Lim; S Sun; S Taylor; M Taylor; B Czerkawski; M Hayes; D N Ionescu; C Yoshizawa; C Chao; S Peacock; S K Chia Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Samuel M Silver; Melissa E Hughes; Douglas W Blayney; Stephen B Edge; James G Herman; Clifford A Hudis; P Kelly Marcom; Jane E Pettinga; David Share; Richard Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; Jonathan L Vandergrift; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harry D Bear; Wen Wan; André Robidoux; Peter Rubin; Steven Limentani; Richard L White; James Granfortuna; Judith O Hopkins; Dwight Oldham; Angel Rodriguez; Amy P Sing Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Julie A Lynch; Brygida Berse; Valentina Petkov; Kelly Filipski; Yingjun Zhou; Muin J Khoury; Michael Hassett; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 8.822