HEDS Research Fellow Sue Harnan has led a study with significant implications for the treatment of breast cancer. The study found varying levels of accuracy in tests used to decide which breast cancer patients will benefit from chemotherapy.
The results also suggest uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of some of the tests.
The results also suggest uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of some of the tests.
 |
| Sue Harnan |
Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic analysis
Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 23, Issue 30.
Link to full article here
Working with Sue Harnan were HEDS colleagues Paul Tappenden, Katy Cooper, John Stevens, Alice Bessey, Rachid Rafia, Sue Ward, and Ruth Wong. Also on the team were Robert C. Stein of University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre/Research Department of Oncology, University College London, and Janet Brown, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
Background
Breast cancer and its treatment can have an impact on health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests aim to identify whether or not women need chemotherapy owing to their risk of relapse.
Objectives
To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tumour profiling tests oncotype DX®(Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA), MammaPrint® (Agendia, Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Prosigna®(NanoString Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), EndoPredict® (Myriad Genetics Ltd, London, UK) and immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC4). To develop a health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of these tests compared with clinical tools to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services.
Design
A systematic review and health economic analysis were conducted.
Review methods
The systematic review was partially an update of a 2013 review. Nine databases were searched in February 2017. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness in people with oestrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I or II cancer with zero to three positive lymph nodes. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model.
Results
A total of 153 studies were identified. Only one completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice was identified: Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) for MammaPrint. Other studies suggest that all the tests can provide information on the risk of relapse; however, results were more varied in lymph node-positive (LN+) patients than in lymph node-negative (LN0) patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint can predict benefit from chemotherapy. The net change in the percentage of patients with a chemotherapy recommendation or decision pre/post test ranged from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 23% among UK studies and a decrease of 0% to 64% across European studies. The health economic analysis suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the tests versus current practice are broadly favourable for the following scenarios: (1) oncotype DX, for the LN0 subgroup with a Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) of > 3.4 and the one to three positive lymph nodes (LN1–3) subgroup (if a predictive benefit is assumed); (2) IHC4 plus clinical factors (IHC4+C), for all patient subgroups; (3) Prosigna, for the LN0 subgroup with a NPI of > 3.4 and the LN1–3 subgroup; (4) EndoPredict Clinical, for the LN1–3 subgroup only; and (5) MammaPrint, for no subgroups.
Limitations
There was only one completed RCT using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice. Except for oncotype DX in the LN0 group with a NPI score of > 3.4 (clinical intermediate risk), evidence surrounding pre- and post-test chemotherapy probabilities is subject to considerable uncertainty. There is uncertainty regarding whether or not oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. The MammaPrint analysis uses a different data source to the other four tests. The Translational substudy of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) study (used in the economic modelling) has a number of limitations.
Conclusions
The review suggests that all the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Health economic analyses indicate that some tests may have a favourable cost-effectiveness profile for certain patient subgroups; all estimates are subject to uncertainty. More evidence is needed on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit, long-term impacts and changes in UK pre-/post-chemotherapy decisions.