M C Chang1, L H Souter2,3, S Kamel-Reid4, M Rutherford5, P Bedard6, M Trudeau7, J Hart8, A Eisen7. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto. 2. Juravinski Hospital, Hamilton. 3. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton. 4. Department of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto. 5. Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Health Sciences North, Sudbury. 6. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto. 7. Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto; and. 8. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline was developed to determine the level of evidence supporting the clinical utility of commercially available multigene profiling assays and to provide guidance about whether certain breast cancer patient populations in Ontario would benefit from alternative tests in addition to Oncotype dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.). METHODS: A systematic electronic Ovid search of the medline and embase databases sought out systematic reviews and primary literature. A systematic review and practice guideline was written by a working group and was then reviewed and approved by Cancer Care Ontario's Molecular Oncology Advisory Committee. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies assessing the clinical utility of Oncotype dx, Prosigna (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.), EndoPredict (Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, U.S.A.), and MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.) were included in the evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical utility of multigene profiling assays is currently established for an appropriate subset of patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative, node-negative breast cancer for whom a decision to give chemotherapy is difficult to make. For patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumours who receive tamoxifen alone, Oncotype dx, Prosigna, and EndoPredict validly identify a low-risk population with favourable outcomes, indicating that a low-risk assay result is actionable and the decision to withhold chemotherapy is supported. Clinical evidence indicates that a high Oncotype dx recurrence score can predict for chemotherapy benefit, but a high Prosigna or EndoPredict score, although prognostic, is not, based on clinical trial evidence, directly actionable. Prosigna and EndoPredict are statistically more likely to identify a population at risk for recurrence beyond 5 years, but that information is currently not actionable because of a lack of interventional studies.
BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline was developed to determine the level of evidence supporting the clinical utility of commercially available multigene profiling assays and to provide guidance about whether certain breast cancerpatient populations in Ontario would benefit from alternative tests in addition to Oncotype dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.). METHODS: A systematic electronic Ovid search of the medline and embase databases sought out systematic reviews and primary literature. A systematic review and practice guideline was written by a working group and was then reviewed and approved by Cancer Care Ontario's Molecular Oncology Advisory Committee. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies assessing the clinical utility of Oncotype dx, Prosigna (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.), EndoPredict (Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, U.S.A.), and MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.) were included in the evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical utility of multigene profiling assays is currently established for an appropriate subset of patients with estrogen receptor-positive, her2-negative, node-negative breast cancer for whom a decision to give chemotherapy is difficult to make. For patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumours who receive tamoxifen alone, Oncotype dx, Prosigna, and EndoPredict validly identify a low-risk population with favourable outcomes, indicating that a low-risk assay result is actionable and the decision to withhold chemotherapy is supported. Clinical evidence indicates that a high Oncotype dx recurrence score can predict for chemotherapy benefit, but a high Prosigna or EndoPredict score, although prognostic, is not, based on clinical trial evidence, directly actionable. Prosigna and EndoPredict are statistically more likely to identify a population at risk for recurrence beyond 5 years, but that information is currently not actionable because of a lack of interventional studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
EndoPredict; MammaPrint; Oncotype dx; Practice guidelines; Prosigna; breast cancer; multigene profiling assays; recurrence
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: 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: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Sherene Loi; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Christine Desmedt; Françoise Lallemand; Andrew M Tutt; Cheryl Gillet; Paul Ellis; Adrian Harris; Jonas Bergh; John A Foekens; Jan G M Klijn; Denis Larsimont; Marc Buyse; Gianluca Bontempi; Mauro Delorenzi; Martine J Piccart; Christos Sotiriou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lyndsay N Harris; Nofisat Ismaila; Lisa M McShane; Fabrice Andre; Deborah E Collyar; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Elizabeth H Hammond; Nicole M Kuderer; Minetta C Liu; Robert G Mennel; Catherine Van Poznak; Robert C Bast; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Christopher Wale; John Forbes; Elizabeth A Mallon; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Anita Dunbier; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Steven Shak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan Mackay; Britta Weigelt; Anita Grigoriadis; Bas Kreike; Rachael Natrajan; Roger A'Hern; David S P Tan; Mitch Dowsett; Alan Ashworth; Jorge S Reis-Filho Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M C Chang; L H Souter; S Kamel-Reid; M Rutherford; P Bedard; M Trudeau; J Hart; A Eisen Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Jeeyeon Lee; Won Hwa Kim; Ji-Young Park; Ho Yong Park; Jin Hyang Jung; Wan Wook Kim; Chan Sub Park; Ryu Kyung Lee; Jee Young Park; Yee Soo Chae; Soo Jung Lee; Hye Jung Kim Journal: In Vivo Date: 2019 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155