Literature DB >> 26681310

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: does the use of Oncotype DX tumor gene expression profiling to guide treatment decisions improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer?

.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: of RECOMMENDATIONS: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of Oncotype DX testing to guide chemotherapy treatment decisions in women with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, or lymph node-positive early breast cancer who are receiving endocrine therapy. This recommendation statement updates a 2009 EGAPP statement on the use of gene expression profiling tests in breast cancer. Evidence of clinical validity for Oncotype DX was confirmed as adequate. With regard to clinical utility, although there was evidence from prospective retrospective studies that the Oncotype DX test predicts benefit from chemotherapy, and there was adequate evidence that the use of Oncotype DX gene expression profiling in clinical practice changes treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy, no direct evidence was found that the use of Oncotype DX testing leads to improved clinical outcomes. RATIONALE: In women with early-stage invasive breast cancer, gene expression profiling is increasingly being used as an aid to estimate the likely benefit from chemotherapy treatment. In a previous recommendation statement, the EGAPP Working Group (EWG) found adequate evidence for clinical validity of some gene expression profiling tests in predicting distant disease recurrence in women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, lymph-node-negative breast cancer who are treated with tamoxifen, but insufficient evidence that use of these tests for decisions about chemotherapy treatment has clinical utility. The current recommendation statement updates these findings for Oncotype DX and extends them to the population of women with lymph node-positive disease, using evidence from recent systematic reviews and other sources. ANALYTIC VALIDITY: The previous recommendation statement found that evidence was inadequate to enable quantitative determination of the analytic validity of Oncotype DX. Analytic validity was not reconsidered in the updated recommendation statement because there remains no gold-standard test for comparison. CLINICAL VALIDITY: The EWG found that new evidence published since the original evidence review supports the clinical validity of Oncotype DX in predicting risk of distant metastases in women with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer that is either node-negative or node-positive. CLINICAL UTILITY: No direct evidence was found that use of Oncotype DX tumor gene expression profiling to guide treatment decisions improves clinical outcomes in women with early breast cancer. There is indirect evidence, from prospective retrospective studies on archived tissue samples from randomized controlled trials, that the Oncotype DX test can predict benefit from chemotherapy. Large, prospective, randomized, controlled trials currently in progress may provide evidence of clinical utility. CONTEXTUAL ISSUES: Until definitive evidence for clinical utility is available, clinicians must decide on a case-by-case basis whether to offer the test to patients. Although Oncotype DX testing has been reported, on the basis of economic modeling studies, to be cost-effective in several different health-care systems and to save costs in the US health-care setting, studies were based on assumptions regarding the clinical utility of the test that require confirmation by clinical trial results.Genet Med 18 8, 770-779.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26681310     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.173

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


  45 in total

Review 1.  Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  John Hornberger; Michael D Alvarado; Chien Rebecca; Hialy R Gutierrez; Tiffany M Yu; William J Gradishar
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Comparison of the prognostic and predictive utilities of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20.

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

3.  Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Consensus Statement.

Authors:  H A Azim; S Michiels; F Zagouri; S Delaloge; M Filipits; M Namer; P Neven; W F Symmans; A Thompson; F André; S Loi; C Swanton
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2013-01-20       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 4.  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

5.  Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer.

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

Review 6.  Is the 21-gene recurrence score a cost-effective assay in endocrine-sensitive node-negative breast cancer?

Authors:  Nathan W D Lamond; Chris Skedgel; Tallal Younis
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.217

7.  Psychosocial and Quality of Life in Women Receiving the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay: The Impact of Decision Style in Women with Intermediate RS.

Authors:  Nadiyah Sulayman; Elizabeth Spellman; Kristi D Graves; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill
Journal:  J Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2012-07-30

8.  Use of Oncotype DX in Women with Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Naoko Ishibe; Sheri Schully; Andrew Freedman; Scott David Ramsey
Journal:  PLoS Curr       Date:  2011-07-21

9.  Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials.

Authors:  R Peto; C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; H C Pan; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; C Taylor; Y C Wang; J Bergh; A Di Leo; K Albain; S Swain; M Piccart; K Pritchard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy.

Authors:  Mitch Dowsett; Ivana Sestak; Elena Lopez-Knowles; Kalvinder Sidhu; Anita K Dunbier; J Wayne Cowens; Sean Ferree; James Storhoff; Carl Schaper; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  6 in total

1.  Uptake of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer practice: views of academic and community-based oncologists.

Authors:  M A O'Brien; S Dhesy-Thind; C Charles; M Hammond Mobilio; N B Leighl; E Grunfeld
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  The future of clinical cancer genomics.

Authors:  Kenneth Offit
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 4.929

Review 3.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: prognostic gene signatures are not (yet) useful in clinical practice.

Authors:  S Michiels; N Ternès; F Rotolo
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  Clinical Utility of the 12-Gene DCIS Score Assay: Impact on Radiotherapy Recommendations for Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Jennifer B Manders; Henry M Kuerer; Benjamin D Smith; Cornelia McCluskey; William B Farrar; Thomas G Frazier; Linna Li; Charles E Leonard; Dennis L Carter; Sheema Chawla; Lori E Medeiros; J Michael Guenther; Lauren E Castellini; Daniel J Buchholz; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Irene L Wapnir; Kathleen C Horst; Anees Chagpar; Suzanne B Evans; Adam I Riker; Faisal S Vali; Lawrence J Solin; Lisa Jablon; Abram Recht; Ranjna Sharma; Ruixiao Lu; Amy P Sing; E Shelley Hwang; Julia White
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Clinical and economic impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in adjuvant therapy decision making in patients with early-stage breast cancer: pooled analysis in 4 Basque Country university hospitals.

Authors:  Purificación Martínez Del Prado; Isabel Alvarez-López; Severina Domínguez-Fernández; Arrate Plazaola; Oliver Ibarrondo; Elena Galve-Calvo; Nerea Ancizar-Lizarraga; María Gutierrez-Toribio; Ainhara Lahuerta-Martínez; Javier Mar
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2018-03-19

6.  Comparative analysis of molecular signatures reveals a hybrid approach in breast cancer: Combining the Nottingham Prognostic Index with gene expressions into a hybrid signature.

Authors:  Dimitrij Tschodu; Bernhard Ulm; Klaus Bendrat; Jürgen Lippoldt; Pablo Gottheil; Josef A Käs; Axel Niendorf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.