Race, Ethnicity, and Clinical Outcomes in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Negative Breast Cancer in the Randomized TAILORx Trial.

BACKGROUND: Black race is associated with worse outcomes in early breast cancer. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS), treatment delivered, and clinical outcomes by race and ethnicity among women who participated in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. METHODS: The association between clinical outcomes and race (White, Black, Asian, other or unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic) was examined using proportional hazards models. All P values are 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 9719 eligible women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, there were 8189 (84.3%) Whites, 693 (7.1%) Blacks, 405 (4.2%) Asians, and 432 (4.4%) with other or unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 889 (9.1%) were Hispanic. There were no substantial differences in RS or ESR1, PGR, or HER2 RNA expression by race or ethnicity. After adjustment for other covariates, compared with White race, Black race was associated with higher distant recurrence rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.07 to 2.41) and worse overall survival in the RS 11-25 cohort (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.15) and entire population (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.90). Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were associated with better outcomes. There was no evidence of chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group in those with a RS of 11-25. CONCLUSIONS: Black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Similar to Whites, Black women did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy if the 21-gene RS was 11-25. Further research is required to elucidate the basis for this racial disparity in prognosis.

The Human Tumor Atlas Network: Charting Tumor Transitions across Space and Time at Single-Cell Resolution.

Crucial transitions in cancer-including tumor initiation, local expansion, metastasis, and therapeutic resistance-involve complex interactions between cells within the dynamic tumor ecosystem. Transformative single-cell genomics technologies and spatial multiplex in situ methods now provide an opportunity to interrogate this complexity at unprecedented resolution. The Human Tumor Atlas Network (HTAN), part of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Initiative, will establish a clinical, experimental, computational, and organizational framework to generate informative and accessible three-dimensional atlases of cancer transitions for a diverse set of tumor types. This effort complements both ongoing efforts to map healthy organs and previous large-scale cancer genomics approaches focused on bulk sequencing at a single point in time. Generating single-cell, multiparametric, longitudinal atlases and integrating them with clinical outcomes should help identify novel predictive biomarkers and features as well as therapeutically relevant cell types, cell states, and cellular interactions across transitions. The resulting tumor atlases should have a profound impact on our understanding of cancer biology and have the potential to improve cancer detection, prevention, and therapeutic discovery for better precision-medicine treatments of cancer patients and those at risk for cancer.

Clinical Outcomes in Early Breast Cancer With a High 21-Gene Recurrence Score of 26 to 100 Assigned to Adjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Endocrine Therapy: A Secondary Analysis of the TAILORx Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A high 21-gene recurrence score (RS) by breast cancer assay is prognostic for distant recurrence of early breast cancer after local therapy and endocrine therapy alone, and for chemotherapy benefit. Objective: To describe clinical outcomes for women with a high RS who received adjuvant chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy in the TAILORx trial, a population expected to have a high distant recurrence rate with endocrine therapy alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized clinical trial, 1389 women with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer, and a high RS of 26 to 100 were prospectively assigned to receive adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to endocrine therapy. The analysis was conducted on May 12, 2019. Interventions: The adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was selected by the treating physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Freedom from recurrence of breast cancer at a distant site, and freedom from recurrence, second primary cancer, and death (also known as invasive disease-free survival [IDFS]). Results: Among the 9719 eligible women, with a mean age of 56 years (range 23-75 years), 1389 (14%) had a recurrence score of 26 to 100, of whom 598 (42%) had an RS of 26 to 30 and 791 (58%) had an RS of 31 to 100. The most common chemotherapy regimens included docetaxel/cyclophosphamide in 589 (42%), an anthracycline without a taxane in 334 (24%), an anthracycline and taxane in 244 (18%), cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil in 52 (4%), other regimens in 81 (6%), and no chemotherapy in 89 (6%). At 5 years, the estimated rate of freedom from recurrence of breast cancer at a distant site was 93.0% (standard error [SE], 0.8%), freedom of recurrence of breast cancer at a distant and/or local regional site 91.0% (SE, 0.8%), IDFS 87.6% (SE, 1.0%), and overall survival 95.9% (SE, 0.6%). Conclusions and Relevance: The estimated rate of freedom from recurrence of breast cancer at a distant site in women with an RS of 26 to 100 treated largely with taxane and/or anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens plus endocrine therapy in the prospective TAILORx trial was 93% at 5 years, an outcome better than expected with endocrine therapy alone in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00310180.

Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer may be guided by clinicopathological factors and a score based on a 21-gene assay to determine the risk of recurrence. Whether the level of clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence adds prognostic information to the recurrence score is not known. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial involving 9427 women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer, in whom an assay of 21 genes had been performed, and we classified the clinical risk of recurrence of breast cancer as low or high on the basis of the tumor size and histologic grade. The effect of clinical risk was evaluated by calculating hazard ratios for distant recurrence with the use of Cox proportional-hazards models. The initial endocrine therapy was tamoxifen alone in the majority of the premenopausal women who were 50 years of age or younger. RESULTS: The level of clinical risk was prognostic of distant recurrence in women with an intermediate 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 (on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a worse prognosis or a greater potential benefit from chemotherapy) who were randomly assigned to endocrine therapy (hazard ratio for the comparison of high vs. low clinical risk, 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93 to 3.87) or to chemotherapy plus endocrine (chemoendocrine) therapy (hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.66 to 3.48) and in women with a high recurrence score (a score of 26 to 100), all of whom were assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (hazard ratio, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.94 to 5.19). Among women who were 50 years of age or younger who had received endocrine therapy alone, the estimated (±SE) rate of distant recurrence at 9 years was less than 5% (≤1.8±0.9%) with a low recurrence score (a score of 0 to 10), irrespective of clinical risk, and 4.7±1.0% with an intermediate recurrence score and low clinical risk. In this age group, the estimated distant recurrence at 9 years exceeded 10% among women with a high clinical risk and an intermediate recurrence score who received endocrine therapy alone (12.3±2.4%) and among those with a high recurrence score who received chemoendocrine therapy (15.2±3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical-risk stratification provided prognostic information that, when added to the 21-gene recurrence score, could be used to identify premenopausal women who could benefit from more effective therapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180.).

Addressing the dichotomy between individual and societal approaches to personalised medicine in oncology.

Academic, industry, regulatory leaders and patient advocates in cancer clinical research met in November 2018 at the Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development meeting in Brussels to address the existing dichotomy between increasing calls for personalised oncology approaches based on individual molecular profiles and the need to make resource and regulatory decisions at the societal level in differing health-care delivery systems around the globe. Novel clinical trial designs, the utility and limitations of real-world evidence (RWE) and emerging technologies for profiling patient tumours and tumour-derived DNA in plasma were discussed. While randomised clinical trials remain the gold standard approach to defining clinical utility of local and systemic therapeutic interventions, the broader adoption of comprehensive tumour profiling and novel trial designs coupled with RWE may allow patient and physician autonomy to be appropriately balanced with broader assessments of safety and overall societal benefit.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence score based on the 21-gene breast cancer assay predicts chemotherapy benefit if it is high and a low risk of recurrence in the absence of chemotherapy if it is low; however, there is uncertainty about the benefit of chemotherapy for most patients, who have a midrange score. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial involving 10,273 women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer. Of the 9719 eligible patients with follow-up information, 6711 (69%) had a midrange recurrence score of 11 to 25 and were randomly assigned to receive either chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. The trial was designed to show noninferiority of endocrine therapy alone for invasive disease-free survival (defined as freedom from invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death). RESULTS: Endocrine therapy was noninferior to chemoendocrine therapy in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio for invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death [endocrine vs. chemoendocrine therapy], 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.24; P=0.26). At 9 years, the two treatment groups had similar rates of invasive disease-free survival (83.3% in the endocrine-therapy group and 84.3% in the chemoendocrine-therapy group), freedom from disease recurrence at a distant site (94.5% and 95.0%) or at a distant or local-regional site (92.2% and 92.9%), and overall survival (93.9% and 93.8%). The chemotherapy benefit for invasive disease-free survival varied with the combination of recurrence score and age (P=0.004), with some benefit of chemotherapy found in women 50 years of age or younger with a recurrence score of 16 to 25. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemoendocrine therapy had similar efficacy in women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer who had a midrange 21-gene recurrence score, although some benefit of chemotherapy was found in some women 50 years of age or younger. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; TAILORx ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180 .).

Circulating Tumor DNA Assays in Clinical Cancer Research.

The importance of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in cancer clinical research was recognized in 1994 when a mutated RAS gene fragment was detected in a patient's blood sample. Up to 1% of the total circulating DNA in patients with cancer is circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) that originates from tumor cells. As ctDNA is rapidly cleared from the blood stream and can be obtained by minimally invasive methods, it can be used as a dynamic cancer biomarker for cancer early detection, diagnosis, and treatment monitoring. Despite the potential for clinical use, few ctDNA assays have been cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. As tools for clinical and translational research, current ctDNA assays face some challenges, and more research is needed to advance use of these assays. On September 29-30, 2016, the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis at the National Cancer Institute convened a workshop entitled "Circulating Tumor DNA Assays in Clinical Cancer Research" to garner input from industry experts, academia, and government research and regulatory agencies to understand and promote the translation of ctDNA assays to clinical research, with potential to advance to use in clinical practice. This Commentary presents the topics of the workshop covered in the presentations and points made in the discussions that followed: 1) background on ctDNA, 2) potential clinical utility of ctDNA assays, 3) assay technology, 4) assay clinical and analytical validation, and 5) industry perspectives. Additional relevant information that has come to light since the workshop has been included.

Biomarkers in early-phase trials: fundamental issues.

Biomarkers are frequently being included in early-phase clinical trials. This article is meant to introduce clinical investigators to the fundamentals of choosing a biomarker test for use in an early phase trial. Steps to consider are briefly outlined including defining the role of the biomarker in the early phase trial; selecting a fit-for-purpose biomarker test and laboratory; describing the test procedures; carrying out analytical validation testing appropriate for the research objectives and the risk involved in the trial; implementing the test in the trial; and planning for the future. Examples illustrate analytical validation approaches in the context of typical biomarker roles. The importance of collaboration between clinical investigators and laboratory researchers is emphasized.

Use of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests to Guide Cancer Treatment: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey of Oncologists in the United States.

Purpose: There are no nationally representative data on oncologists' use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate how oncologists in the United States use NGS tests to evaluate patients with cancer and to inform treatment recommendations. Methods: The study used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, which was mailed to a nationally representative sample of oncologists in 2017 (N = 1,281; cooperation rate = 38%). Weighted percentages were calculated to describe NGS test use. Multivariable modeling was conducted to assess the association of test use with oncologist practice characteristics. Results: Overall, 75.6% of oncologists reported using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions. Of these oncologists, 34.0% used them often to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced refractory disease, 29.1% to determine eligibility for clinical trials, and 17.5% to decide on off-label use of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs. NGS test results informed treatment recommendations often for 26.8%, sometimes for 52.4%, and never or rarely for 20.8% of oncologists. Oncologists younger than 50 years of age, holding a faculty appointment, having genomics training, seeing more than 50 unique patients per month, and having access to a molecular tumor board were more likely to use NGS tests. Conclusion: In 2017, most oncologists in the United States were using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions for their patients. More research is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of these tests, to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines for their use in practice, and to ensure that patients who can benefit from these new technologies receive appropriate testing and treatment.

Steps forward for cancer precision medicine.

The availability of targeted anticancer drugs and the relative affordability of genomic analyses has led to a growing expectation among patients with cancer that they can receive personalized treatment based on the genomic signature of their tumour. Here, we discuss some of the challenges and steps needed to bring such approaches into routine practice.

Societal challenges of precision medicine: Bringing order to chaos.

The increasing number of drugs targeting specific proteins implicated in tumourigenesis and the commercial promotion of relatively affordable genome-wide analyses has led to an increasing expectation among patients with cancer that they can now receive effective personalised treatment based on the often complex genomic signature of their tumour. For such approaches to work in routine practice, the development of correspondingly complex biomarker assays through an appropriate and rigorous regulatory framework will be required. It is becoming increasingly evident that a re-engineering of clinical research is necessary so that regulatory considerations and procedures facilitate the efficient translation of these required biomarker assays from the discovery setting through to clinical application. This article discusses the practical requirements and challenges of developing such new precision medicine strategies, based on leveraging complex genomic profiles, as discussed at the Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development meeting (8th-9th September 2016, Brussels, Belgium).

Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies with the use of a prospective-retrospective design including archival tumor samples have shown that gene-expression assays provide clinically useful prognostic information. However, a prospectively conducted study in a uniformly treated population provides the highest level of evidence supporting the clinical validity and usefulness of a biomarker. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial involving women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer with tumors of 1.1 to 5.0 cm in the greatest dimension (or 0.6 to 1.0 cm in the greatest dimension and intermediate or high tumor grade) who met established guidelines for the consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of clinicopathologic features. A reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay of 21 genes was performed on the paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and the results were used to calculate a score indicating the risk of breast-cancer recurrence; patients were assigned to receive endocrine therapy without chemotherapy if they had a recurrence score of 0 to 10, indicating a very low risk of recurrence (on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of recurrence). RESULTS: Of the 10,253 eligible women enrolled, 1626 women (15.9%) who had a recurrence score of 0 to 10 were assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone without chemotherapy. At 5 years, in this patient population, the rate of invasive disease-free survival was 93.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4 to 94.9), the rate of freedom from recurrence of breast cancer at a distant site was 99.3% (95% CI, 98.7 to 99.6), the rate of freedom from recurrence of breast cancer at a distant or local-regional site was 98.7% (95% CI, 97.9 to 99.2), and the rate of overall survival was 98.0% (95% CI, 97.1 to 98.6). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer who met established guidelines for the recommendation of adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of clinicopathologic features, those with tumors that had a favorable gene-expression profile had very low rates of recurrence at 5 years with endocrine therapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180.).

A risk-management approach for effective integration of biomarkers in clinical trials: perspectives of an NCI, NCRI, and EORTC working group.

Clinical cancer research today often includes testing the value of biomarkers to direct treatment and for drug development. However, the practical challenges of integration of molecular information into clinical trial protocols are increasingly appreciated. Inherent difficulties include evidence gaps in available biomarker data, a paucity of robust assay methods, and the design of appropriate studies within the constraints of feasible trial operations, and finite resources. Scalable and proportionate approaches are needed to systematically cope with these challenges. Therefore, we assembled international experts from three clinical trials organisations to identify the common challenges and common solutions. We present a practical risk-assessment framework allowing targeting of scarce resources to crucial issues coupled with a library of useful resources and a simple actionable checklist of recommendations. We hope that these practical methods will be useful for running biomarker-driven trials and ultimately help to develop biomarkers that are ready for integration in routine practice.

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration.

High-throughput 'omics' technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well.

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials.

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with scientists representing multiple areas of expertise relevant to 'omics'-based test development, has developed a checklist of criteria that can be used to determine the readiness of omics-based tests for guiding patient care in clinical trials. The checklist criteria cover issues relating to specimens, assays, mathematical modelling, clinical trial design, and ethical, legal and regulatory aspects. Funding bodies and journals are encouraged to consider the checklist, which they may find useful for assessing study quality and evidence strength. The checklist will be used to evaluate proposals for NCI-sponsored clinical trials in which omics tests will be used to guide therapy.

Challenges in drug and biomarker co-development.

Co-development of drugs and biomarkers should be considered when the biomarker is intricately related to the use of the drug. There are risks and benefits to co-development and these need to be considered carefully early in the process. The current chapter attempts to delineate when it is appropriate to plan for co-development and to discuss a range of issues. Challenges include the determination of the type of assay (laboratory-developed test vs. reference laboratory vs. kit), the designs of trials for evaluation of clinical utility, and the regulatory pathway. Successful co-development requires planning very early in the process and assembling the appropriate multi-disciplinary team.

Bridging the gap: moving predictive and prognostic assays from research to clinical use.

The development of clinically useful molecular diagnostics requires validation of clinical assay performance and achievement of clinical qualification in clinical trials. As discussed elsewhere in this Focus section on molecular diagnostics, validation of assay performance must be rigorous, especially when the assay will be used to guide treatment decisions. Here we review some of the problems associated with assay development, especially for academic investigators. These include lack of expertise and resources for analytical validation, lack of experience in designing projects for a specific clinical use, lack of specimens from appropriate patient groups, and lack of access to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratories. In addition, financial support for assay validation has lagged behind financial support for marker discovery or drug development, even though the molecular diagnostic may be considered necessary for the successful use of the companion therapeutic. The National Cancer Institute supports a large number of clinical trials and a significant effort in drug development. In order to address some of these barriers for predictive and prognostic assays that will be used in clinical trials to select patients for a particular treatment, stratify patients into molecularly defined subgroups, or choose between treatments for molecularly defined tumors, the National Cancer Institute has begun a pilot program designed to lessen barriers to the development of validated prognostic and predictive assays.

Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group.

Uncontrolled proliferation is a hallmark of cancer. In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of the proportion of cells staining for the nuclear antigen Ki67 has become the most widely used method for comparing proliferation between tumor samples. Potential uses include prognosis, prediction of relative responsiveness or resistance to chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, estimation of residual risk in patients on standard therapy and as a dynamic biomarker of treatment efficacy in samples taken before, during, and after neoadjuvant therapy, particularly neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Increasingly, Ki67 is measured in these scenarios for clinical research, including as a primary efficacy endpoint for clinical trials, and sometimes for clinical management. At present, the enormous variation in analytical practice markedly limits the value of Ki67 in each of these contexts. On March 12, 2010, an international panel of investigators with substantial expertise in the assessment of Ki67 and in the development of biomarker guidelines was convened in London by the co-chairs of the Breast International Group and North American Breast Cancer Group Biomarker Working Party to consider evidence for potential applications. Comprehensive recommendations on preanalytical and analytical assessment, and interpretation and scoring of Ki67 were formulated based on current evidence. These recommendations are geared toward achieving a harmonized methodology, create greater between-laboratory and between-study comparability, and allow earlier valid applications of this marker in clinical practice.

Gene expression-based survival prediction in lung adenocarcinoma: a multi-site, blinded validation study.

Although prognostic gene expression signatures for survival in early-stage lung cancer have been proposed, for clinical application, it is critical to establish their performance across different subject populations and in different laboratories. Here we report a large, training-testing, multi-site, blinded validation study to characterize the performance of several prognostic models based on gene expression for 442 lung adenocarcinomas. The hypotheses proposed examined whether microarray measurements of gene expression either alone or combined with basic clinical covariates (stage, age, sex) could be used to predict overall survival in lung cancer subjects. Several models examined produced risk scores that substantially correlated with actual subject outcome. Most methods performed better with clinical data, supporting the combined use of clinical and molecular information when building prognostic models for early-stage lung cancer. This study also provides the largest available set of microarray data with extensive pathological and clinical annotation for lung adenocarcinomas.

Cancer diagnostics: decision criteria for marker utilization in the clinic.

A new diagnostic tool must pass three major tests before it is adopted for routine clinical use. First, the tool must be robust and reproducible; second, the clinical value of the tool must be proven, i.e. the tool should reliably trigger a clinical decision that results in patient benefit; and, third, the clinical community has to be convinced of the need for this tool and the benefits it affords. Another factor that can influence the adoption of new tools relates to the cost and the vagaries of insurance reimbursement. The Cancer Diagnosis Program (CDP) of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Program for the Assessment of Clinical Cancer Tests (PACCT) in 2000 to develop a process for moving the results of new technologies and new understanding of cancer biology more efficiently and effectively into clinical practice. PACCT has developed an algorithm that incorporates the iterative nature of assay development into an evaluation process that includes developers and end users. The effective introduction of new tests into clinical practice has been hampered by a series of common problems that are best described using examples of successes and failures. The successful application of the PACCT algorithm is described in the discussion of the recent development of the OncotypeDX assay and plan for a prospective trial of this assay by the NCI-supported Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups. The assay uses reverse transcription (RT)-PCR evaluation of a set of 16 genes that were shown to strongly associate with the risk of recurrence of breast cancer in women who presented with early stage disease (hormone responsive, and no involvement of the auxiliary lymph nodes). The test is highly reproducible. It provides information to aid the physician and patient in making important clinical decisions, including the aggressiveness of the therapy that should be recommended. A trial is planned to test whether OncotypeDX can be used as a standalone trigger for specific treatment decisions. The problems that have been encountered and have delayed the development of other diagnostic tools are exemplified in the development of tests for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) overexpression, for predictors of response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, and for the detection of residual disease following chemotherapy.