Comparative Effectiveness of Biomarkers to Target Cancer Treatment

Background. Biomarkers used at the time of diagnosis to tailor treatment decisions may diffuse into clinical practice before data become available on whether biomarker testing reduces cancer mortality. In the interim, quantitative estimates of the mortality impact of testing are needed to assess the value of these diagnostic biomarkers. These estimates are typically generated by customized models that are resource intensive to build and apply. Methods. We developed a user-friendly system of models for Cancer Translation of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CANTRANce) to model the mortality impact of cancer interventions. The Diagnostic Biomarker module of this system projects the mortality impact of testing for a diagnostic biomarker, given data on how testing affects treatment recommendations. Costs and quality-of-life outcomes may also be modeled. We applied the Diagnostic Biomarker module to 2 case studies to demonstrate its capabilities. Results. The user interface (http://www.fhcrc.org/cantrance) allows comparative effectiveness researchers to use the Diagnostic Biomarker module of CANTRANce. Our case studies indicate that the model produces estimates on par with those generated by customized models and is a strong tool for quickly generating novel projections. Limitations. The simple structure that makes CANTRANce user-friendly also constrains the complexity with which cancer progression can be modeled. The quality of the results rests on the quality of the input data, which may pertain to small or dissimilar populations or suffer from informative censoring. Conclusions. The Diagnostic Biomarker module of CANTRANce is a novel public resource that can provide timely insights into the expected mortality impact of testing for diagnostic biomarkers. The model projections should be useful for understanding the long-term potential of emerging diagnostic biomarkers.

[1]  F. Siannis,et al.  Assessment of somatic k-RAS mutations as a mechanism associated with resistance to EGFR-targeted agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[2]  J. Myers,et al.  Integration of cancer genomics with treatment selection , 2013, Cancer.

[3]  S. Bates,et al.  Progress towards personalized medicine. , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[4]  M. Khoury,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research in cancer: what has been funded and what knowledge gaps remain? , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  P. Neven,et al.  Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Consensus Statement. , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  E. Morenghi,et al.  Potential impact of the 70-gene signature in the choice of adjuvant systemic treatment for ER positive, HER2 negative tumors: a single institution experience. , 2013, Breast.

[7]  P. Prorok,et al.  Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[8]  E. Feuer,et al.  Cumulative cause-specific mortality for cancer patients in the presence of other causes: a crude analogue of relative survival. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  C. Chung,et al.  Predictive and prognostic biomarkers with therapeutic targets in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers: A systemic review of current development, evidence, and recommendation , 2014, Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners.

[10]  A. Russo,et al.  Prognostic vs predictive molecular biomarkers in colorectal cancer: is KRAS and BRAF wild type status required for anti-EGFR therapy? , 2010, Cancer treatment reviews.

[11]  S. Edge,et al.  The effects of oncotype DX recurrence scores on chemotherapy utilization in a multi-institutional breast cancer cohort , 2010, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[12]  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.

[13]  S. Dent,et al.  HER2-targeted therapy in breast cancer: a systematic review of neoadjuvant trials. , 2013, Cancer treatment reviews.

[14]  Hatem Soliman,et al.  The effect of Oncotype DX recurrence score on treatment recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor-positive early stage breast cancer and correlation with estimation of recurrence risk by breast cancer specialists. , 2011, The oncologist.

[15]  D. Sargent,et al.  End points for adjuvant therapy trials: has the time come to accept disease-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival? , 2006, The oncologist.

[16]  Jong-Hyeon Jeong,et al.  Breast cancer adjuvant therapy: time to consider its time-dependent effects. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  L. Minafra,et al.  "Omics" of HER2-positive breast cancer. , 2013, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[18]  G. Lyman,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: an overview. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  A. Gafni,et al.  Discounting in the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Interventions , 1993, Medical care.

[20]  Jonathan Karnon,et al.  Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis , 2012, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[21]  Gwen L. Alexander,et al.  KRAS Testing and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor Treatment for Colorectal Cancer in Community Settings , 2012, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[22]  Joseph P. Costantino,et al.  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 , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  K. Winzer,et al.  The EndoPredict Gene-Expression Assay in Clinical Practice - Performance and Impact on Clinical Decisions , 2013, PloS one.

[24]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Targeting HER2: recent developments and future directions for breast cancer patients. , 2001, Seminars in oncology.

[25]  K. Schulman,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in the context of multifactorial decision making to guide chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[26]  M S Pepe,et al.  Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[27]  D. Owens,et al.  State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--3. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[28]  P. Workman The opportunities and challenges of personalized genome-based molecular therapies for cancer: targets, technologies, and molecular chaperones , 2003, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[29]  Eric J Feuer,et al.  Dynamic Microsimulation Models for Health Outcomes , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.