UNLABELLED
In February 2010, the Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS) began work on evidence-based reviews of published literature surrounding three pharmacogenomic tests. This project came about when Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) asked MAS to provide evidence-based analyses on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three oncology pharmacogenomic tests currently in use in Ontario.Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these technologies. These have been completed in conjunction with internal and external stakeholders, including a Provincial Expert Panel on Pharmacogenomics (PEPP). Within the PEPP, subgroup committees were developed for each disease area. For each technology, an economic analysis was also completed by the Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA) and is summarized within the reports.THE FOLLOWING REPORTS CAN BE PUBLICLY ACCESSED AT THE MAS WEBSITE AT: www.health.gov.on.ca/mas or at www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_about.htmlGENE EXPRESSION PROFILING FOR GUIDING ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY DECISIONS IN WOMEN WITH EARLY BREAST CANCER: An Evidence-Based and Economic AnalysisEpidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation (EGFR) Testing for Prediction of Response to EGFR-Targeting Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Drugs in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence-Based and Ecopnomic AnalysisK-RAS testing in Treatment Decisions for Advanced Colorectal Cancer: an Evidence-Based and Economic Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To review and synthesize the available evidence regarding the laboratory performance, prognostic value, and predictive value of Oncotype-DX for the target population.
CLINICAL NEED
CONDITION AND TARGET POPULATION The target population of this review is women with newly diagnosed early stage (stage I-IIIa) invasive breast cancer that is estrogen-receptor (ER) positive and/or progesterone-receptor (PR) positive. Much of this review, however, is relevant for women with early stage (I and II) invasive breast cancer that is specifically ER positive, lymph node (LN) negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2/neu) negative. This refined population represents an estimated incident population of 3,315 new breast cancers in Ontario (according to 2007 data). Currently it is estimated that only 15% of these women will develop a distant metastasis at 10 years; however, a far great proportion currently receive adjuvant chemotherapy, suggesting that more women are being treated with chemotherapy than can benefit. There is therefore a need to develop better prognostic and predictive tools to improve the selection of women that may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. TECHNOLOGY OF CONCERN: The Oncotype-DX Breast Cancer Assay (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) quantifies gene expression for 21 genes in breast cancer tissue by performing reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour blocks that are obtained during initial surgery (lumpectomy, mastectomy, or core biopsy) of women with early breast cancer that is newly diagnosed. The panel of 21 genes include genes associated with tumour proliferation and invasion, as well as other genes related to HER-2/neu expression, ER expression, and progesterone receptor (PR) expression.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What is the laboratory performance of Oncotype-DX?How reliable is Oncotype-DX (i.e., how repeatable and reproducible is Oncotype-DX)?How often does Oncotype-DX fail to give a useable result?What is the prognostic value of Oncotype-DX?Is Oncotype-DX recurrence score associated with the risk of distant recurrence or death due to any cause in women with early breast cancer receiving tamoxifen?What is the predictive value of Oncotype-DX?Does Oncoytpe-DX recurrence score predict significant benefit in terms of improvements in 10-year distant recurrence or death due to any cause for women receiving tamoxifen plus chemotherapy in comparison to women receiving tamoxifen alone?How does Oncotype-DX compare to other known predictors of risk such as Adjuvant! Online?How does Oncotype-DX impact patient quality of life and clinical/patient decision-making?
RESEARCH METHODS
LITERATURE SEARCH
SEARCH STRATEGY
A literature search was performed on March 19(th), 2010 using OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) for studies published from January 1(st), 2006 to March 19(th), 2010. A starting search date of January 1(st), 2006 was because a comprehensive systematic review of Oncotype-DX was identified in preliminary literature searching. This systematic review, by Marchionni et al. (2008), included literature up to January 1(st), 2007. All studies identified in the review by Marchionni et al. as well as those identified in updated literature searching were used to form the evidentiary base of this review. The quality of the overall body of evidence was identified as high, moderate, low or very low according to GRADE methodology.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
Any observational trial, controlled clinical trial, randomized controlled trial (RCT), meta-analysis or systematic review that reported on the laboratory performance, prognostic value and/or predictive value of Oncotype-DX testing, or other outcome relevant to the Key Questions, specific to the target population was included.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Studies that did not report original data or original data analysis,Studies published in a language other than English,Studies reported only in abstract or as poster presentations (such publications were not sought nor included in this review since the MAS does not generally consider evidence that is not subject to peer review nor does the MAS consider evidence that lacks detailed description of methodology).
OUTCOMES OF INTEREST
Outcomes of interest varied depending on the Key Question. For the Key Questions of prognostic and predictive value (Key Questions #2 and #3), the prospectively defined primary outcome was risk of 10-year distant recurrence. The prospectively defined secondary outcome was 10-year death due to any cause (i.e., overall survival). All additional outcomes such as risk of locoregional recurrence or disease-free survival (DFS) were not prospectively determined for this review but were reported as presented in included trials; these outcomes are referenced as tertiary outcomes in this review. Outcomes for other Key Questions (i.e., Key Questions #1, #4 and #5) were not prospectively defined due to the variability in endpoints relevant for these questions.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A total of 26 studies were included. Of these 26 studies, only five studies were relevant to the primary questions of this review (Key Questions #2 and #3). The following conclusions were drawn from the entire body of evidence: There is a lack of external validation to support the reliability of Oncotype-DX; however, the current available evidence derived from internal industry validation studies suggests that Oncotype-DX is reliable (i.e., Oncotype-DX is repeatable and reproducible).Current available evidence suggests a moderate failure rate of Oncotype-DX testing; however, the failure rate observed across clinical trials included in this review is likely inflated; the current Ontario experience suggests an acceptably lower rate of test failure.In women with newly diagnosed early breast cancer (stage I-II) that is estrogen-receptor positive and/or progesterone-receptor positive and lymph-node negative:There is low quality evidence that Oncotype-DX has prognostic value in women who are being treated with adjuvant tamoxifen or anastrozole (the latter for postmenopausal women only),There is very low quality evidence that Oncotype-DX can predict which women will benefit from adjuvant CMF/MF chemotherapy in women being treated with adjuvant tamoxifen.In postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed early breast cancer that is estrogen-receptor positive and/or progesterone-receptor positive and lymph-node positive:There is low quality evidence that Oncotype-DX has limited prognostic value in women who are being treated with adjuvant tamoxifen or anastrozole,There is very low quality evidence that Oncotype-DX has limited predictive value for predicting which women will benefit from adjuvant CAF chemotherapy in women who are being treated with adjuvant tamoxifen.There are methodological and statistical limitations that affect both the generalizability of the current available evidence, as well as the magnitude and statistical strength of the observed effect sizes; in particular:Of the major predictive trials, Oncotype-DX scores were only produced for a small subset of women (<40% of the original randomized population) potentially disabling the effects of treatment randomization and opening the possibility of selection bias;Data is not specific to HER-2/neu-negative women;There were limitations with multivariate statistical analyses.Additional trials of observational design may provide further validation of the prognostic and predictive value of Oncotype-DX; however, it is unlikely that prospective or randomized data will become available in the near future due to ethical, time and resource considerations.There is currently insufficient evidence investigating how Oncoytpe-DX compares to other known prognostic estimators of risk, such as Adjuvant! Online, and there is insufficient evidence investigating how Oncotype-DX would impact clinician/patient decision-making in a setting generalizable to Ontario.
[1]
M. Cronin,et al.
Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.
,
2006,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[2]
Roman Rouzier,et al.
Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer.
,
2004,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[3]
B Fisher,et al.
Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.
,
1997,
Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[4]
Daniel J Sargent,et al.
Predictive biomarker validation in practice: lessons from real trials
,
2010,
Clinical trials.
[5]
M. Cronin,et al.
Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX genomic diagnostic test for recurrence prognosis and therapeutic response prediction in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.
,
2007,
Clinical chemistry.
[6]
Xin Sun,et al.
Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses
,
2010,
BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[7]
Debjani Dutta,et al.
Measurement of gene expression in archival paraffin-embedded tissues: development and performance of a 92-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay.
,
2004,
The American journal of pathology.
[8]
S. Shak,et al.
A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients
,
2006,
Breast Cancer Research.
[9]
Daniel J Sargent,et al.
Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges.
,
2009,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[10]
Ahmedin Jemal,et al.
Trends in Breast Cancer by Race and Ethnicity
,
2003,
CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.
[11]
Robert B Livingston,et al.
Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial.
,
2010,
The Lancet. Oncology.
[12]
J. Bryant,et al.
Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials
,
2004,
The Lancet.
[13]
S. Verma,et al.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer.
,
2010,
The oncologist.
[14]
M. Cronin,et al.
Predicting response to primary chemotherapy: gene expression profiling of paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue
,
2007,
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
[15]
M. Cronin,et al.
A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer.
,
2004,
The New England journal of medicine.
[16]
E. Espinosa,et al.
Comparison of Prognostic Gene Profiles Using qRT-PCR in Paraffin Samples: A Retrospective Study in Patients with Early Breast Cancer
,
2009,
PloS one.
[17]
Daniel J Sargent,et al.
Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Biomarker Validation: One Size Does Not Fit All
,
2009,
Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.
[18]
T. Yamanaka,et al.
Clinical significance of the 21‐gene signature (Oncotype DX) in hormone receptor‐positive early stage primary breast cancer in the Japanese population
,
2010,
Cancer.
[19]
T. Shien,et al.
21-Gene expression profile assay on core needle biopsies predicts responses to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients.
,
2009,
Breast.
[20]
J. Bryan.
S31 Toward a More Rational Selection of Tailored AdjuvantTherapy: Data from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project
,
2005
.
[21]
M. Cronin,et al.
Tumor Gene Expression and Prognosis in Breast Cancer Patients with 10 or More Positive Lymph Nodes
,
2005,
Clinical Cancer Research.
[22]
G. Guyatt,et al.
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
,
2004,
BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[23]
Kevin Coombes,et al.
Prognostic Role of a Multigene Reverse Transcriptase-PCR Assay in Patients with Node-Negative Breast Cancer Not Receiving Adjuvant Systemic Therapy
,
2005,
Clinical Cancer Research.
[24]
Robert Gray,et al.
Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features.
,
2008,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[25]
A. Cohn,et al.
Impact of a commercial reference laboratory test recurrence score on decision making in early-stage breast cancer.
,
2007,
Journal of oncology practice.
[26]
Rohit Bhargava,et al.
Histopathologic variables predict Oncotype DX™ Recurrence Score
,
2008,
Modern Pathology.
[27]
P. Tartter,et al.
Does oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer?
,
2008,
American journal of surgery.
[28]
Soonmyung Paik,et al.
Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers.
,
2009,
Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[29]
Andreas Makris,et al.
Gene expression patterns in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded core biopsies predict docetaxel chemosensitivity in breast cancer patients
,
2008,
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
[30]
S. Paik,et al.
Association between the 21-gene recurrence score assay and risk of locoregional recurrence in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20.
,
2010,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[31]
J. Hornberger,et al.
Impact of a 21‐gene RT‐PCR assay on treatment decisions in early‐stage breast cancer
,
2007,
Cancer.
[32]
Jack Cuzick,et al.
Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study.
,
2010,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[33]
N. Sion-Vardy,et al.
Stage I breast cancer in a regional oncology practice in Israel 2002-2006: clinicopathologic features, risk estimation and planned therapy of 328 consecutive patients.
,
2009,
Breast.
[34]
W. Barry,et al.
The Oncotype DX Recurrence Score Is Correlated With a Composite Index Including Routinely Reported Pathobiologic Features
,
2010,
Cancer investigation.
[35]
B. Kaufman,et al.
Association between standard clinical and pathologic characteristics and the 21‐gene recurrence score in breast cancer patients
,
2008,
Cancer.
[36]
Renee F Wilson,et al.
Systematic Review: Gene Expression Profiling Assays in Early-Stage Breast Cancer
,
2008,
Annals of Internal Medicine.
[37]
D. Hayes,et al.
Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection.
,
2010,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[38]
D. Sargent,et al.
Clinical Trial Designs for Prospective Validation of Biomarkers
,
2005,
American journal of pharmacogenomics : genomics-related research in drug development and clinical practice.
[39]
G. Guyatt,et al.
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
,
2008,
BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[40]
S. Martino,et al.
Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial
,
2009,
The Lancet.