Assessment of Molecular Relapse Detection in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Importance: Current treatment cures most cases of early-stage, primary breast cancer. However, better techniques are required to identify which patients are at risk of relapse. Objective: To assess the clinical validity of molecular relapse detection with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in early-stage breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multicenter, sample collection, validation study conducted at 5 United Kingdom medical centers from November 24, 2011, to October 18, 2016, assessed patients with early-stage breast cancer irrespective of hormone receptor and ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu) status who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery or surgery before adjuvant chemotherapy. The study recruited 170 women, with mutations identified in 101 patients forming the main cohort. Secondary analyses were conducted on a combined cohort of 144 patients, including 43 patients previously analyzed in a proof of principle study. Interventions: Primary tumor was sequenced to identify somatic mutations, and personalized tumor-specific digital polymerase chain reaction assays were used to monitor these mutations in serial plasma samples taken every 3 months for the first year of follow-up and subsequently every 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was relapse-free survival analyzed with Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: In the main cohort of 101 female patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [11] years) with a median follow-up of 35.5 months (interquartile range, 27.9-43.0 months), detection of ctDNA during follow-up was associated with relapse (hazard ratio, 25.2; 95% CI, 6.7-95.6; P < .001). Detection of ctDNA at diagnosis, before any treatment, was also associated with relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.2-27.1; P = .01). In the combined cohort, ctDNA detection had a median lead time of 10.7 months (95% CI, 8.1-19.1 months) compared with clinical relapse and was associated with relapse in all breast cancer subtypes. Distant extracranial metastatic relapse was detected by ctDNA in 22 of 23 patients (96%). Brain-only metastasis was less commonly detected by ctDNA (1 of 6 patients [17%]), suggesting relapse sites less readily detectable by ctDNA analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that detection of ctDNA during follow-up is associated with a high risk of future relapse of early-stage breast cancer. Prospective studies are needed to assess the potential of molecular relapse detection to guide adjuvant therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lapatinib plus Letrozole in Post-Menopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-and HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the EGF30008 and TAnDEM (TrAstuzumab in Dual HER2 ER-positive Metastatic breast cancer) trials, anti-HER2 therapy plus an aromatase inhibitor (lapatinib + letrozole (LAP + LET) and trastuzumb + anastrozole (TZ + ANA), respectively) improved time to progression versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (LET and ANA, respectively) in post-menopausal women with previously untreated hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A partitionedsurvival analysis model using data from EGF30008 and published results of TAnDEM and other literature was used to evaluate the incremental direct medical cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with LAP + LET versus LET, ANA, and TZ + ANA in post-menopausal women with previously untreated HR+ and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: Incremental costs for LAP + LET are £ 34,737 versus LET, £ 35,995 versus ANA, and £ 5,513 versus TZ + ANA. Corresponding QALYs gained are 0.467, 0.601, and 0.252 years. Cost/QALY gained with LAP + LET is £ 74,448 versus LET, £ 59,895 versus ANA, and £ 21,836 versus TZ + ANA. Given a threshold of £ 30,000/QALY, the estimated probability that LAP + LET is cost-effective is 1.4% versus LET, 9.2% versus ANA, and 51% versus TZ + ANA. CONCLUSIONS: Based on criteria for the evaluation of health technologies in the UK (£ 30,000/QALY), LAP + LET is not likely to be cost-effective versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy but may be cost-effective versus TZ + ANA, although the latter comparison is associated with substantial uncertainty.

Cost-effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole therapy after 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer and estrogen or progesterone receptor-positive tumors who had completed 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with extended adjuvant letrozole vs no extended adjuvant therapy. Probabilities of breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral tumor adverse effects and death were estimated using data from the MA.17 study and other secondary sources. Costs (in 2004 US dollars) and quality-of-life effects (utilities) of breast cancer events and adverse effects were derived from the literature. RESULTS: In base-case analyses, extended adjuvant letrozole vs no extended adjuvant therapy results in an expected gain of 0.34 QALYs per patient (13.62 vs 13.28 QALYs), at an additional lifetime cost of 9699 dollars per patient (55,254 dollars vs 45,555 dollars). The incremental cost per QALY gained with letrozole is 28,728 dollars. Cost-effectiveness is sensitive to the assumed reduction in risk of breast cancer events with letrozole but is insensitive to the risks, costs, and quality-of-life effects of osteoporosis and hip fracture. Cost-effectiveness is less than 100,000 dollars per QALY for node-positive patients younger than 81 years and for node-negative patients younger than 73 years. CONCLUSION: For postmenopausal women with early breast cancer who have completed 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, the cost-effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole is within the range of other generally accepted medical interventions in the United States.

Cost effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal women after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy: the UK perspective.

BACKGROUND: MA17 was a randomised placebo-controlled trial of letrozole 2.5 mg/day in 5187 estrogen receptor-positive, 50% node-negative, postmenopausal women (median age 62 years at enrollment) with early breast cancer, post-5 years' adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. The objective of this evaluation was to extrapolate the findings from the MA17 trial to estimate the lifetime cost effectiveness of letrozole in this setting. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost per QALY gained with extended adjuvant letrozole versus no therapy. Probabilities of disease progression and death were estimated using data from the MA17 study and other secondary sources. Costs of breast cancer care (letrozole therapy, surveillance, recurrences, terminal care) and treatment of osteoporosis and utilities were derived from literature. A full probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and cost estimates reflect 2004 values. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Extended adjuvant letrozole resulted in a gain of 0.36 QALYs per patient (13.66 vs 13.30 with no therapy). These benefits were obtained at an additional expected lifetime cost of 3732 pounds per patient (10,833 pounds letrozole vs 7101 pounds with no therapy). Cost effectiveness was estimated at 10,338 pounds per QALY gained (95% CI 5276, 43,828). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Five years of letrozole therapy appears to be cost effective from the NHS perspective and should be considered in women with early breast cancer, following tamoxifen adjuvant therapy.