Impact of 21-Gene Breast Cancer Assay on Treatment Decision for Patients with T1-T3, N0-N1, Estrogen Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer: Final Results of the Prospective Multicenter ROXANE Study.

BACKGROUND: The ROXANE Italian prospective study evaluated the impact of the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) results on adjuvant treatment decision for patients with early breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine centers participated. Physicians used the RS test whenever unsure about adjuvant treatment recommendation for patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative, T1-T3, N0-N1 early breast cancer. Pre-RS and post-RS treatment recommendations were collected. RESULTS: A total of 251 patients were included. N0 patients (61%) showed higher grade (p < .001) and higher Ki67 (p = .001) and were more frequently progesterone receptor negative (p = .012) as compared with N1 patients. RS results were as follows: <11, n = 63 (25.1%); 11-25, n = 143 (57%); and ≥26, n = 45 (17.9%). Higher RS was found in N0 vs. N1 patients (p = .001) and in cases of G3 (p < .001) and higher Ki67 (p < .001). The rate of change in treatment decision was 30% (n = 75), mostly from chemotherapy (CT) plus hormone therapy (CT + HT) to hormone therapy (HT; 76%, n = 57/75). The proportion of patients recommended to CT + HT was significantly reduced from pre-RS to post-RS (52% to 36%, p < .0001). CT use reduction was more evident for N1 patients (55% to 27%) than for N0 patients (50% to 42%) and was observed only in cases of RS ≤17. CONCLUSION: Physicians predominantly used the 21-gene assay in N0 patients with a more aggressive biology or in N1 patients showing more indolent biology. In this selected patient population, the use of RS testing led to a 30% rate of change in treatment decision. In the N1 patient subgroup, the use of RS testing contributed to reduce CT use by more than half. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study shows that, even in a context in which physicians recommend a high proportion of patients to endocrine treatment alone before knowing the results of the Recurrence Score (RS) assay, the use of the RS test, whenever uncertainty regarding adjuvant treatment recommendation is present, significantly contributes in further reducing the use of chemotherapy, especially for N1 patients.

Prospective clinical trials of biotherapies in solid tumors: a 5-year survey.

PURPOSE: To review the content and quality of prospective clinical trials of biotherapies in solid tumors. METHODS: Data were collected from the literature between 1990 and 2002 on general study characteristics, patient and disease factors, study methodology, and factors related to completeness of reporting. Quality of phase II studies was evaluated by an ad hoc questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, contingency tables, and the chi-square test were applied. RESULTS: A total of 334 studies were selected, of which about three quarters were multicenter, with 42.5% reporting phase I, 42.2% phase II or I/II, and 11.9% phase III or II/III studies. Only 13.7% were randomized, and a study design emphasizing statistical analysis was lacking in as many as one third. The assessment of biological endpoints was stated as the primary or secondary goal in half of these studies. Melanoma (17.1%), renal carcinoma (11.1%), gastrointestinal neoplasms (11.1%), and lymphomas (6.3%) were the most studied diseases. Immunotherapies accounted for 182 studies; the remaining 152 reported other biotherapies. Patients with (1) advanced disease (P = 0.003), (2) heavily pretreated neoplasms (P < 0.0001), (3) poor performance status (PS < 2) (P < 0.0001), were more frequently enrolled in studies of biotherapy. Biotherapies were less frequently evaluated in phase III studies (7/152) compared with immunotherapies (33/182) (P < 0.0001). A statistical study design was more frequently identified in biotherapy trials (127/152) compared with immunotherapy trials (98/182) (P < 0.0001). Biological endpoints were less frequently evaluated in phase III studies in both biotherapies (100% no vs 0% yes) and immunotherapies (81.8% no vs 18.2% yes) (P = 0.01, for biotherapies; P < 0.0001, for immunotherapies). Phase I immunotherapy studies more frequently applied biological or molecular criteria for patient selection (41.1%) than phase II (29.3%) and III (3.1%) studies (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The very wide diversity in modalities of conducting and reporting clinical trials of biotherapies of solid tumors and the presence of some methodological pitfalls suggest that the methodological standards for conducting and publishing clinical trials in biotherapies should be improved to enhance the reliability of the body of published data.