Personalized surveillance and aftercare for non-metastasized breast cancer: the NABOR study protocol of a multiple interrupted time series design.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of curatively treated primary breast cancer patients consists of surveillance and aftercare and is currently mostly the same for all patients. A more personalized approach, based on patients' individual risk of recurrence and personal needs and preferences, may reduce patient burden and reduce (healthcare) costs. The NABOR study will examine the (cost-)effectiveness of personalized surveillance (PSP) and personalized aftercare plans (PAP) on patient-reported cancer worry, self-rated and overall quality of life and (cost-)effectiveness. METHODS: A prospective multicenter multiple interrupted time series (MITs) design is being used. In this design, 10 participating hospitals will be observed for a period of eighteen months, while they -stepwise- will transit from care as usual to PSPs and PAPs. The PSP contains decisions on the surveillance trajectory based on individual risks and needs, assessed with the 'Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid' including the INFLUENCE prediction tool. The PAP contains decisions on the aftercare trajectory based on individual needs and preferences and available care resources, which decision-making is supported by a patient decision aid. Patients are non-metastasized female primary breast cancer patients (N = 1040) who are curatively treated and start follow-up care. Patient reported outcomes will be measured at five points in time during two years of follow-up care (starting about one year after treatment and every six months thereafter). In addition, data on diagnostics and hospital visits from patients' Electronical Health Records (EHR) will be gathered. Primary outcomes are patient-reported cancer worry (Cancer Worry Scale) and overall quality of life (as assessed with EQ-VAS score). Secondary outcomes include health care costs and resource use, health-related quality of life (as measured with EQ5D-5L/SF-12/EORTC-QLQ-C30), risk perception, shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, societal participation, and cost-effectiveness. Next, the uptake and appreciation of personalized plans and patients' experiences of their decision-making process will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to insight in the (cost-)effectiveness of personalized follow-up care and contributes to development of uniform evidence-based guidelines, stimulating sustainable implementation of personalized surveillance and aftercare plans. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study sponsor: ZonMw. Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (2023), ID: NCT05975437.

"One more chance to survive": the experiences of patients with advanced melanoma and their partners with tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy-a qualitative study and recommendations for future care.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced melanoma refractory to first-line treatment have a need for effective second-line treatment options. A recent phase 3 trial showed promising results for adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as second-line therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. However, it remains unknown how patients and their partners experience TIL therapy, which is key to evaluate and improve the quality of care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews about the experience of TIL therapy were conducted with patients with advanced melanoma and their partners 2-4 weeks post-treatment (short term) and >6 months after treatment (long term). RESULTS: In total, 25 interviews were conducted with advanced melanoma patients treated with TIL (n=13) and their partners (n=12), with the majority being short-term interviews (n=17). Overall, patients and partners experienced TIL therapy as intense (uncertainty of successful TIL culture, multiple treatment-related toxicities, and extensive hospitalization). Patients and partners with young children or other caregiving responsibilities encountered the most challenges during TIL therapy. All patients, however, reported a recovery of all treatment-related toxicities within 2-4 weeks (except fatigue). CONCLUSION: Clinical data justify the role of TIL therapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma. With the distinct nature of TIL therapy compared to the current standard of care, we have provided patient-centered recommendations that will further enhance the quality of TIL therapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: As more patients with advanced melanoma are expected to receive TIL therapy in the future, our findings could be incorporated into survivorship care plans for this novel group of advanced melanoma survivors treated with TIL.

Health-state utilities in long-term advanced melanoma survivors comparable with the general population.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to substantially improve the survival of patients with advanced melanoma. With this growing group of survivors treated with immunotherapies, assessing their health-state utilities is essential and can be used for the calculation of quality-adjusted life years and for cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, we evaluated the health-state utilities in long-term advanced melanoma survivors. METHODS: Health-state utilities were evaluated in a cohort of advanced melanoma survivors 24-36 months (N = 37) and 36-plus months (N = 47) post-ipilimumab monotherapy. In addition, the health-state utilities of the 24-36 months survivor group were assessed longitudinally, and utilities of the combined survival groups (N = 84) were compared with a matched control population (N = 168). The EQ-5D was used to generate health-state utility values, and quality-of-life questionnaires were used to establish correlations and influencing factors of utility scores. RESULTS: Health-state utility scores were similar between the 24-36 months'- and the 36-plus months' survival group (0.81 vs 0.86; p = .22). In survivors, lower utility scores were associated with symptoms of depression (ß = - .82, p = .022) and fatigue burden (ß = - .29, p = .007). Utility scores did not significantly change after 24-36 months of survival, and the utilities of survivors were comparable to the matched control population (0.84 vs 0.87; p = .07). DISCUSSION: Our results show that long-term advanced melanoma survivors treated with ipilimumab monotherapy experience relatively stable and high health-state utility scores.

Clinical implementation of routine diagnostic laparoscopy to guide initial treatment in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer in Dutch clinical practice: Evaluation of support and a budget impact analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), a diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) to determine treatment regime prevents futile laparotomies and seems cost-neutral. The uptake of DLS in current practice is unknown. We evaluated the clinical application of routine DLS in treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC in the Netherlands. METHODS: The implementation was evaluated over the period 2017-2019, using a health technology assessment including clinical, organizational, and economic factors. Barriers for implementation were identified and DLS use was assessed using semi-structured surveys with healthcare professionals. Data from the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit were used to determine (un)successful CRS rates. To assess the economic impact, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) of the combined interventions of DLS and primary CRS. RESULTS: The DLS use to guide treatment planning increased from 16% to 20%. The majority of the centers did not support routine DLS implementation, mainly because of logistic barriers and its invasive nature. The primary CRS rate of all CRS decreased from 44% to 36%, in favor of interval CRS. The unsuccessful primary CRS rate decreased from 15% to 9% resulting in fewer patients needed a second interval CRS. Consequently, total health care costs decreased from €4.457.496 to €4.274.751. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of routine DLS for guiding treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC has limited support in the Netherlands. Over the years, total health care costs decreased. For current practice, it is advised that a DLS is useful in case it is uncertain whether a successful primary CRS is feasible based on conventional work-up.

Effects of and Lessons Learned from an Internet-Based Physical Activity Support Program (with and without Physiotherapist Telephone Counselling) on Physical Activity Levels of Breast and Prostate Cancer Survivors: The PABLO Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: We developed an Internet-based physical activity (PA) support program (IPAS), which is embedded in a patient portal. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of IPAS alone (online only) or IPAS combined with physiotherapist telephone counselling (blended care), compared to a control group. METHODS: Breast or prostate cancer survivors, 3-36 months after completing primary treatment, were randomized to 6-months access to online only, blended care, or a control group. At baseline and 6-month post-baseline, minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were measured by accelerometers. Secondary outcomes were self-reported PA, fatigue, mood, health-related quality of life, attitude toward PA, and costs. (Generalized) linear models were used to compare the outcomes between groups. RESULTS: We recruited 137 survivors (participation rate 11%). We did not observe any significant between-group differences in MVPA or secondary outcomes. Adherence was rather low and satisfaction scores were low to moderate, with better scores for blended care. Costs for both interventions were low. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to the study was challenging and the interventions were less efficacious than anticipated, which led to lessons learned for future trials. Suggestions for future research are as follows: improved accessibility of the support program, increased frequency of support, and use of activity trackers.

Dedicated MRI staging versus surgical staging of peritoneal metastases in colorectal cancer patients considered for CRS-HIPEC; the DISCO randomized multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Selecting patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer (CRCPM) who might benefit from cytoreductive surgery followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) is challenging. Computed tomography generally underestimates the peritoneal tumor load. Diagnostic laparoscopy is often used to determine whether patients are amenable for surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown to be accurate in predicting completeness of CRS. The aim of this study is to determine whether MRI can effectively reduce the need for surgical staging. METHODS: The study is designed as a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) of colorectal cancer patients who are deemed eligible for CRS-HIPEC after conventional CT staging. Patients are randomly assigned to either MRI based staging (arm A) or to standard surgical staging with or without laparoscopy (arm B). In arm A, MRI assessment will determine whether patients are eligible for CRS-HIPEC. In borderline cases, an additional diagnostic laparoscopy is advised. The primary outcome is the number of unnecessary surgical procedures in both arms defined as: all surgeries in patients with definitely inoperable disease (PCI > 24) or explorative surgeries in patients with limited disease (PCI < 15). Secondary outcomes include correlations between surgical findings and MRI findings, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life (QOL) analysis. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial determines whether MRI can effectively replace surgical staging in patients with CRCPM considered for CRS-HIPEC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the clinical trials registry of U.S. National Library of Medicine under NCT04231175 .

Securing sustainable price levels of innovative anticancer drugs: How to move forward?

BACKGROUND: Novel cancer treatments come with high price tags that compromise access to treatment and the sustainability of healthcare systems. Innovative policies are needed to reach a system that balances innovation and reasonable prices. However, structured approaches to explore, test, and compare innovative proposals are lacking. METHODS: We surveyed experts to evaluate seven promising proposals to reduce drug prices: Transparency, Combined European purchasing, Public drug development, Public clinical trials, Two-part-pricing, Orphan drug reform, and De-linkage. Experts were asked to rank proposals, identify main risk and success factors, and to reflect on missing proposals. The survey was distributed via the networks of the European Cancer League and the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 41) originated from 19 European countries and included stakeholders in health economics, law, medicine, drug discovery, and healthcare policy.Transparency (M = 2; SD = 2 1) and Combined purchasing (M = 3; SD = 1 9) were ranked as the most promising proposals, Two-part pricing (M = 5; SD = 2 3) and De-linkage (M = 6; SD = 2 4) were considered as the most controversial. Main risk categories were a negative impact on R&D (n = 47), technical feasibility (n = 38), and reduced access to medicines (n = 33). Main success categories were international collaboration (n = 34) and agreement of pricing mechanisms (n = 25). Experts considered value assessment and strengthening of the competitive market as additional proposals for further analysis. CONCLUSION: We recommend expanding on these results to further specify actionable policies that can be tested. Pilots should consider uncertainties and conducted with a focus on international collaboration, preferably in cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry.

Barriers and facilitators of patient access to medical devices in Europe: A systematic literature review.

A large number of medical devices (MDs) is available in Europe. Procedures for market approval and reimbursement have been adopted over recent years to promote accelerating patient access to innovative MDs. However, there remains uncertainty and non-transparency regarding these procedures. We provide a structured overview of market approval and reimbursement procedures and practices regarding access to MDs in the EU. Market approval procedures were found to be uniformly described. Data on reimbursement procedures and practices was both heterogeneous and incomplete. Time to MD access was mainly determined by reimbursement procedures. The influence of the patient on time to access was not reported. Prescription practices varied among device types. Barriers to and facilitators of early patient access that set the agenda for policy implications were also analyzed. Barriers were caused by unclear European legislation, complex market approval procedures, lack of data collection, inconsistency in evidence requirements between countries, regional reimbursement and provision, and factors influencing physicians' prescription including the device costs, waiting times and hospital-physician relationships. Facilitators were: available evidence that meets country-specific requirements for reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups, additional payments and research programs. Further research needs to focus on creating a complete overview of reimbursement procedures and practices by extracting further information from sources such as grey literature and interviews with professionals, and defining clear criteria to objectify time to access.

Variation in the time to treatment for stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer patients for hospitals in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Increased emphasis on molecular diagnostics can lead to increased variation in time to treatment (TTT) for patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. This article presents the variation in TTT for advanced NSCLC patients observed in Dutch hospitals before the widespread use of immunotherapy. The aim of this article was to explore the variation in TTT between patients, as well as between hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we used patient-level data (n = 4096) from all 78 hospitals that diagnosed stage III or IV NSCLC in the Netherlands in 2016. To investigate how patient characteristics and hospital-level effects are associated with TTT (from diagnosis until start treatment), we interpreted regression model results for five common patient profiles to analyze the influence of age, gender, tumor stage, performance status, histology, and referral status as well as hospital-level characteristics on the TTT. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: TTT varies substantially between and within hospitals. The median TTT was 28 days with an inter-quartile range of 22 days. The hospital-level median TTT ranges from 17 to 68 days. TTT correlates significantly with tumor stage, performance status, and histology. The hospital-level effect, unrelated to hospital volume and type, affected TTT by several weeks at most. For most patients, TTT is within range as recommended in current guidelines. Variation in TTT seems higher for patients receiving either radiotherapy or targeted therapy, or for patients referred to another hospital and we hypothesize this is related to the complexity of the diagnostic pathway. With further advances in molecular diagnostics and precision oncology we expect variation in TTT to increase and this needs to be considered in designing optimal cancer care delivery.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus palliative systemic chemotherapy in stomach cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination, the study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PERISCOPE II).

BACKGROUND: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3-4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. DISCUSSION: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150 ; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing.

Patient access to voice prostheses and heat and moisture exchangers: Factors influencing physician's prescription and reimbursement in eight European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Patient access to the voice prosthesis and heat and moisture exchanger (HME) is not always guaranteed in Europe. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study is to evaluate factors influencing physician's prescription and reimbursement of these devices in eight European countries, and to identify barriers of and facilitators to effective patient access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this mixed methods study, we conducted a survey among stakeholders evaluating prescription (Part 1 of the survey), reimbursement (Part 2), and barriers of and facilitators to effective patient access (Part 3). Part 1 was completed by head and neck surgeons employed in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland. Part 2 and 3 were completed by medical device company representatives in respective countries, followed by semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Based on the survey, filled in by 36 surgeons, all prescribed the voice prosthesis. Four surgeons didn't prescribe the HME in Italy and Poland due to lack of both reimbursement and experience/training, and feeling uncomfortable with device use. Most restrictive factors (e.g. increased workload, insufficient staff) occurred in countries with decentralized healthcare systems including Spain and Italy. CONCLUSION: Non-HME-usage was influenced by economical and physician-related factors. Restrictive factors were related to limited regional device reimbursement and provision. Nationwide reimbursement, guideline implementation, support for physicians by training/education and providing a rehabilitation team will increase device use.

(Cost-)effectiveness of an internet-based physical activity support program (with and without physiotherapy counselling) on physical activity levels of breast and prostate cancer survivors: design of the PABLO trial.

BACKGROUND: Higher levels of physical activity (PA) after treatment are associated with beneficial effects on physical and psychosocial functioning of cancer survivors. However, survivors often do not meet the recommended levels of PA. In order to promote PA, we developed a closed internet-based program. The aim of the study is to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of an internet-based PA-promotion program, alone or combined with physiotherapy counselling, compared to usual care, on PA-levels of breast or prostate cancer survivors. In this multicenter randomised controlled trial (RCT), breast or prostate cancer survivors who completed their primary treatment 3-12 months earlier, will be randomised to either 6-months access to a fully-automated internet-based intervention alone, an internet-based intervention plus remote support by a physiotherapist, or a control group. The intervention is based on the Transtheoretical Model and includes personalized feedback, information, video's and assignments. Additionally, in a second arm, physiotherapy counselling is provided through monthly scheduled and on-demand telephone calls. The control group will receive usual care and a leaflet with PA guidelines. METHODS: At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the primary outcome (PA) will be measured during 7 consecutive days by accelerometers. Secondary outcomes are self-reported PA, fatigue, mood, health-related quality of life, and costs. The group differences for primary and secondary outcomes will be analyzed using linear mixed models. DISCUSSION: If proven to be (cost)effective, this internet-based intervention, either alone or in combination with telephone support, will be a welcome addition to previous RCT's. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands trial register (NTR6911), Date of trial registration: December 21, 2017.

Close cooperation with Health Technology Assessment expertise is crucial for implementation and ultimately reimbursement of innovations in oncology.

The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes OECI working group on Health Economics and Cost Benefit in Oncology suggests four actions that are needed to improve alignment and integration between clinicians, researchers, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts and agencies: 1) HTA expertise is necessary close to or within the comprehensive cancer centres (CCC); 2) HTA expertise should be physically present throughout the translational research process; 3) Appropriate knowledge is necessary within the research staff; 4) Close cooperation between translational researchers, clinicians, and health economists guarantees clinical ownership. Fulfilling these conditions may help the translational research field in oncology to interact with agencies and efficiently move innovative technologies through the translational research stages into that of implementation and diffusion. This brings innovative treatments faster to the patient with a greater chance of reimbursement.

Innovations that reach the patient: early health technology assessment and improving the chances of coverage and implementation.

With growing concerns for the sustainability of the financial burden that health care-and especially cancer services-poses on the national budgets, the role of health economic analyses in coverage decisions is likely to grow. One of the strategies for the biomedical research field-also in oncology research-to foster coverage and health system implementation, is to anticipate this new role and to involve health technology assessment techniques earlier in various stages of translational research. In this article, we elaborate on the early involvement of health technology assessment in translational research and the concept of Coverage with Evidence Development in The Netherlands Cancer Institute and give two case examples that are currently ongoing: (1) tumour infiltrating lymphocytes therapy for metastatic melanoma; and (2) high-dose chemotherapy for BRCA1-like subgroup in triple-negative breast cancer. We conclude with recommendations for institutional policy.

Scenario drafting for early technology assessment of next generation sequencing in clinical oncology.

BACKGROUND: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is expected to lift molecular diagnostics in clinical oncology to the next level. It enables simultaneous identification of mutations in a patient tumor, after which targeted therapy may be assigned. This approach could improve patient survival and/or assist in controlling healthcare costs by offering expensive treatment to only those likely to benefit. However, NGS has yet to make its way into the clinic. Health Technology Assessment can support the adoption and implementation of a novel technology, but at this early stage many of the required variables are still unknown. METHODS: Scenario drafting and expert elicitation via a questionnaire were used to identify factors that may act as a barrier or facilitate adoption of NGS-based molecular diagnostics. Attention was paid to predominantly elicit quantitative answers, allowing their use in future modelling of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Adequately informing patients and physicians, the latters' opinion on clinical utility and underlying evidence as well as presenting sequencing results within a relevant timeframe may act as pivotal facilitators. Reimbursement for NGS-based testing and accompanying therapies (both general and in case of off-label prescription) was found to be a potential barrier. Competition on the market and demonstrating clinical utility may also be challenging. Importantly, numerous quantitative values for variables related to each of these potential barriers/facilitators, such as such as desired panel characteristics, willingness to pay or the expected number of targets identified per person, were also elicited. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified several factors that may either pose a barrier or facilitate the adoption of NGS in the clinic. We believe acting upon these findings, for instance by organizing educational events, advocating new ways of evidence generation and steering towards the most cost-effective solution, will accelerate the route from bench-to-bedside. Moreover, due to the methodology of expert elicitation, this study provides parameters that can be incorporated in future cost-effectiveness modeling to steer the development of NGS gene panels towards the most optimal direction.

The multigene signature MammaPrint impacts on multidisciplinary team decisions in ER+, HER2- early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Validated multigene signatures (MGS) provide additional prognostic information when evaluating clinical features of ER(+), HER2(-) early breast cancer. We have studied the quantitative and qualitative impact of MGS on multidisciplinary team (MDT) recommendations. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 75 ER(+), HER2(-) breast cancer patients. Inclusion was based on biopsy assessment of grade, hormone receptor status, HER2, clinical tumour and nodal status. A fresh tissue sample was sent for MammaPrint (MP), TargetPrint analysis at surgery. Clinical risk was decided by the MDT in the absence of MP results and repeated following the collection of MP results. Decision changes were recorded and a health technology assessment was undertaken to compare cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The majority of patients were assigned low to intermediate clinical risk by the MDT. According to MP, 76% were low risk. A very high correlation between local IHC and the TargetPrint assessment was shown. In over a third of patients, discordance between clinical and molecular risk was observed. Decision changes were recorded in half of these cases (18.6%) and resulted in two out of three patients not requiring chemotherapy. The use of MP was also found to be more cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: The multigene signature MP revealed clinical and molecular risk discordance in a third of patients. The impact of this on MDT recommendations was most profound in cases where few clinical risk factors were observed and enabled some women to forgo chemotherapy. The use of MGS is unlikely to have an impact in either clinically low-risk women or in patients with more than one relative indication for chemotherapy.

Optimized outcome prediction in breast cancer by combining the 70-gene signature with clinical risk prediction algorithms.

Clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment differ in their selection of patients at a high risk of recurrence who are eligible to receive adjuvant systemic treatment (AST). The 70-gene signature is a molecular tool to better guide AST decisions. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether adding the 70-gene signature to clinical risk prediction algorithms can optimize outcome prediction and consequently treatment decisions in early stage, node-negative breast cancer patients. A 70-gene signature was available for 427 patients participating in the RASTER study (cT1-3N0M0). Median follow-up was 61.6 months. Based on 5-year distant-recurrence free interval (DRFI) probabilities survival areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated and compared for risk estimations based on the six clinical risk prediction algorithms: Adjuvant! Online (AOL), Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), St. Gallen (2003), the Dutch National guidelines (CBO 2004 and NABON 2012), and PREDICT plus. Also, survival AUC were calculated after adding the 70-gene signature to these clinical risk estimations. Systemically untreated patients with a high clinical risk estimation but a low risk 70-gene signature had an excellent 5-year DRFI varying between 97.1 and 100 %, depending on the clinical risk prediction algorithms used in the comparison. The best risk estimation was obtained in this cohort by adding the 70-gene signature to CBO 2012 (AUC: 0.644) and PREDICT (AUC: 0.662). Clinical risk estimations by all clinical algorithms improved by adding the 70-gene signature. Patients with a low risk 70-gene signature have an excellent survival, independent of their clinical risk estimation. Adding the 70-gene signature to clinical risk prediction algorithms improves risk estimations and therefore might improve the identification of early stage node-negative breast cancer patients for whom AST has limited value. In this cohort, the PREDICT plus tool in combination with the 70-gene signature provided the best risk prediction.