Health economic analysis of Breast Cancer Index in patients with ER+, LN- breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Breast Cancer Index (BCI) is a novel gene expression-based test for patients with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), lymph node negative (LN-) breast cancer that predicts risk of recurrence over 10 years, and also specifically predicts risk of late (≥5 y) recurrences and likelihood of benefit from extended (≥5 y) endocrine therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate cost utility of BCI from a US third-party payer perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Two fact-based economic models were developed to project the cost and effectiveness of BCI in a hypothetical population of patients with ER+, LN- breast cancer compared with standard clinicopathologic diagnostic modalities. METHODS: Costs associated with adjuvant chemotherapy, toxicity, followup, endocrine therapy, and recurrence were modeled over 10 years. The models examined cost utility compared with standard practice when used at diagnosis and in patients disease-free at 5 years post diagnosis. RESULTS: Use of BCI was projected to be cost saving in both models. In the newly diagnosed population, net cost savings were $3803 per patient tested. In the 5 years post diagnosis population, BCI was projected to yield a net cost savings of $1803 per patient tested. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that BCI was cost saving across a wide range of clinically relevant input assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: BCI was projected to be cost saving when used either at diagnosis or at 5 years post diagnosis. Cost savings are achieved through projected impact on adjuvant chemotherapy use, extended endocrine therapy use, and endocrine therapy compliance. These findings require validation in additional cohorts, including studies of real-world clinical practice.

Clinical utility of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The CCP signature test (Prolaris) quantifies a patient's risk of disease progression and prostate cancer specific mortality using a gene-expression-based cell cycle progression (CCP) score. This study evaluated the potential clinical utility of the CCP test in a US-based clinical setting. METHODS: Urologists who participated in a prospective clinical study were sent a retrospective questionnaire to assess the value of the CCP test result. Fifteen board-certified urologists participated in the study, representing 15 distinct community urology group practices. Questionnaires were received for 294 evaluable patients. All patients had localized prostate cancer (T1-T3b, N0, M0). RESULTS: Physicians found the CCP score valuable and indicated that 55% of tests generated a mortality risk that was either higher or lower than expected. Physicians also indicated that 32% of test results would lead to a definite or possible change in treatment. The data suggest that the test would have the net effect of shifting patients from more aggressive treatment to more conservative treatment. This was evidenced by the significant association between change in treatment and lower CCP scores (p < 0.002) and by the fact that 62% of tests likely to lead to a definite or possible change in treatment had mortality risks lower than the physician expected versus only 10% with risks higher than expected. STUDY LIMITATIONS: This study measured the retrospectively assessed likelihood of change in treatment as estimated by the physician, not the actual change in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The CCP score adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Real-world use of the test is likely to lead to a change in treatment in a significant portion of tested patients, particularly by shifting patients towards more conservative management. This could reduce overtreatment of patients with less aggressive disease, decreasing patient morbidity and costs for payers and the healthcare system.

Breaking a vicious cycle.

Despite prodigious advances in tumor biology research, few tumor-biomarker tests have been adopted as standard clinical practice. This lack of reliable tests stems from a vicious cycle of undervaluation, resulting from inconsistent regulatory standards and reimbursement, as well as insufficient investment in research and development, scrutiny of biomarker publications by journals, and evidence of analytical validity and clinical utility. We offer recommendations designed to serve as a roadmap to break this vicious cycle and call for a national dialogue, as changes in regulation, reimbursement, investment, peer review, and guidelines development require the participation of all stakeholders.

Combating complexity: partnerships in personalized medicine.

We are entering an era of unprecedented complexity in personalized medicine. Therapeutic targets, biomarker detection technologies, regulatory and reimbursement pathways, and commercialization strategies have all reached new levels of intricacy. These complexities are occurring in the context of the current economic environment, in which outsourcing offers a way for innovators to decrease large internal investment. These factors combine to create a perfect setting for a partnership explosion. Now, and as we move into the future, it will be critical for innovators to access outside expertise with a diverse set of partners in order to bring novel personalized medicine products to the market successfully and economically. Only companies that truly embrace this trend and adopt a collaborative approach will emerge successful.

Advocacy in personalized medicine: a developing strength in a complex space.

Multiple stakeholders play a role in the adoption of personalized medicine, including payers, patients, policy makers, diagnostic manufacturers and providers, and clinicians. These stakeholders span multiple positions, institutions and points of view, and are interested in making sure that each diagnostic launch covers a particular, sometimes contradictory, market need. A growing number of advocacy groups have emerged to unify these stakeholders in this increasingly complex marketplace. This perspective will identify examples of these advocacy efforts in personalized medicine today. It will discuss how far these groups have been able to go, what they are currently pursuing and how they and others can continue to work to move personalized medicine from concept to reality.