The impact of EndoPredict ® on decision making with increasing oncological work experience: can overtreatment be avoided?

BACKGROUND: Estimating distant recurrence risk in women with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer is still challenging. EndoPredict® is a gene expression-based test predicting the likelihood of recurrent disease. We analyzed the difference in oncological decision making with and without the knowledge of gene expression tests. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis including patients diagnosed with hormone-receptor positive, Her2 negative breast cancer between 2011 and 2015 at the Municipal Breast Cancer Centre Cologne, Germany. All patients received an evaluation by EndoPredict®. An oncological tumor board (TB) with knowledge of these results served as a baseline (control group). This baseline was compared to the treatment decision (adjuvant chemotherapy yes vs. no) made by oncologists with different experience levels (less than 5 years, between 5 and 15 years, and more than 15 years) who were not provided the EndoPredict® scores. All clinicians had access to clinical as well to histopathological data. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between control group and the oncologists with different experience levels concerning a chemotherapy indication. A trend could be shown in the subgroup of nodal negative patients between the treatment recommendation and physicians with more than 15 years of experience (p = 0.088). A further trend could be demonstrated in the subgroup of patients with a low Ki67 index (≤ 14%) (p = 0.063) between physician with 5-10 years of clinical experience and official treatment recommendation. CONCLUSION: It seems that inexperienced physicians may profit from the use of EndoPredict® to avoid an overtreatment. In nodal negative patients and patients with a low Ki67 index, undertreatment can be avoided with the use of EndoPredict® (borderline significance). Further prospective studies with larger study cohorts are needed to further validate this tool.

Use of the Gene Expression Test Prosigna® in Premenopausal Patients with HR+, HER2- Early Breast Cancer: Correlation of the Results with the Proliferation Marker Ki-67.

Introduction: In hormone receptor-positive (ER+/PR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (EBC), gene expression tests such as the Prosigna are increasingly used since classic clinicopathological parameters and the proliferation factor Ki-67 often do not allow a definite therapy decision regarding an adjuvant chemotherapy. While the Prosigna test has been validated for postmenopausal patients, few data are available regarding its use in premenopausal patients. The present study compared the Prosigna test with the Ki-67 index in premenopausal patients. Materials and Methods: Premenopausal patients with HR+ HER2-, pN0-1, G1-2 EBC were retrospectively enrolled (n = 55). The Prosigna assay was performed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples of surgical resection specimens. Ki-67 was reassessed in original diagnostic core needle biopsy specimens and defined as low, intermediate, or high with the threshold of <10%, 10-24%, ≥25%. Results: According to Ki-67, patients were in the low (LR)-, intermediate (IR)-, and high-risk (HR) groups in 40%, 36%, and 24% of the cases. The Prosigna gene signature assay assessed the risk of recurrence as LR for 45% of the patients, IR for 35%, and HR for 20%. The most frequent intrinsic subtypes were luminal A in 73% and luminal B in 24% of the patients. A moderate correlation was found between Prosigna and Ki-67 scores with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.51. In the overall cohort, 47% of the Ki-67-based therapy decision would correspond to those based on the Prosigna score. After exclusion of IR patients, matching of low/low or high/high results was observed in 57% of the cases. Conclusion: According to the present study, there is only limited concordance regarding the risk group stratification between Ki-67 and Prosigna-based risk assessment. The relevance and frequency of premenopausal breast cancer emphasizes the need for further evaluation of gene expression analyses in this setting and the correlation with classic clinicopathological parameters regarding therapy decision-making.

Budget Impact of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test in Patients with Early Primary Hormone-Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Positive Breast Cancer in Germany.

Background: Gene expression tests can inform decisions on whether to recommend or omit chemotherapy for patients with early HR+, HER2- breast cancer. The benefit of these tests is well established and fully reimbursed by sickness funds for lymph node-negative (pN0) patients in Germany. A budget impact model was built to evaluate the effect of using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test also for node-positive (pN1: 1-3 positive lymph nodes) patients. Methods: The prospective randomized clinical trial, RxPONDER, defined conditions (Recurrence Score result 0-25 for postmenopausal patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes) under which omitting chemotherapy does not significantly impact invasive disease-free survival with results currently reported for 5-year follow-up. The present budget impact model calculates average total cost per node-positive patient versus no testing from a sickness funds perspective, taking into account not only the budgetary impact of avoiding chemotherapy and associated side effects, but also the costs of treating those patients who develop distant metastasis. The stability of the results was investigated by probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analysis. Results: After deducting testing cost, applying the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test yielded an average savings per node-positive patient of EUR 4,272. Without the test costs, the greatest savings resulted from reductions in direct treatment costs and costs arising from the treatment of chemotherapy-related side effects, which together averaged EUR 6,677. The targeted use of chemotherapy after testing also resulted in slightly lower costs for treatment of distant metastasis, if it did occur. The multivariate sensitivity analysis also almost exclusively resulted in cost savings. Conclusion: Analogous to the pN0 situation, this budget impact model demonstrates that the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test can also reduce healthcare costs in Germany in treatment of node-positive (pN1: 1-3 positive lymph nodes) patients by minimizing both unnecessary chemotherapy and undertreatment. Additional benefits to patients would include reduced morbidity and improved quality of life for those patients who can safely avoid chemotherapy or undertreatment.

A simplified risk scoring system for predicting high-risk groups in gene expression tests for patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, and node-positive breast cancer.

Purpose: The gene expression test (GET) was used to predict the response to chemotherapy and the recurrence risk. Several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that some patients with node-positive disease can achieve favorable survival outcomes even without adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aimed to predict the results of Oncotype DX (Genomic Health) and MammaPrint (Agendia) using traditional clinicopathological factors. Methods: We reviewed the records of 311 patients who underwent GET for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative primary invasive breast cancer with node-positive disease between 2015 and 2022 at Severance Hospital and Gangneung Asan Medical Center. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses assessed the relationships between clinicopathological variables and risk stratification using the GET results. Results: A simple scoring system was created by assigning integer values to each variable. A score of 3 was assigned for histological grade 3, a score of 2 for pathologic T2 or above, and a score of 1 for a lower progesterone receptor (1-20 or Alled score 3-6), HER2 2-positive, and high Ki-67 (>20). In the validation cohort, overall accuracy was 0.798 (95% confidence interval, 0.744-0.844). Conclusion: The high GET risk results can be predicted using traditional clinicopathological factors: tumor size, progesterone receptor, histological grade, HER2, and Ki-67. These results will be useful for treatment decision-making among clinically high-risk patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative and node-positive disease, helping to identify patients to whom the GET assay may not apply.

Budget impact of the Oncotype DX® test compared to other gene expression tests in patients with early breast cancer in Germany.

PURPOSE: Gene expression tests can inform decisions on whether to recommend chemotherapy for patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer. The goal of this analysis was to compare treatment costs by an expanded budget impact model of reimbursed gene expression tests in Germany. METHODS: A cost comparison was constructed as an expanded budget impact model to calculate average total costs per patient covered by public health insurance. Based on the strong clinical evidence from the prospective randomized controlled trial TAILORx including more than 10,000 patients with HR+ and node negative breast cancer, the assumption was made that the Oncotype DX® test accurately predicts chemotherapy benefit and clinical outcomes. For the further reimbursed tests (EndoPredict®, MammaPrint®, Prosigna®), results from comparative studies - aligned with prognosis studies - as analyzed in IQWiG Rapid Report D19-01 were applied. RESULTS: The use of the Oncotype DX test led to estimated average savings per patient of 2,500 € vs. EndoPredict, 1,936 € vs. MammaPrint, and 649 € vs. Prosigna. Savings were achieved by reduction of unnecessary chemotherapy use, a consequence of false-positive test results (EndoPredict 73%, MammaPrint 42%, Prosigna 20%). False-negative test results (EndoPredict 5%, MammaPrint 22%, Prosigna 49%) reduced necessary chemotherapies, which initially results in cost savings, but may lead to increased long-term costs associated with management of progressive disease. CONCLUSION: The results from this model suggest that the use of the Oncotype DX test reduces the cost of health care in Germany making it the most cost effective test compared to the further tests.

Budget impact analysis of gene expression tests to aid therapy decisions for breast cancer patients in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Many women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer may not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Gene expression tests can reduce chemotherapy over- and undertreatment by providing prognostic information on the likelihood of recurrence and, with Oncotype DX, predictive information on chemotherapy benefit. These tests are currently not reimbursed by German healthcare payers. An analysis was conducted to evaluate the budget impact of gene expression tests in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs of gene expression tests and medical and non-medical costs associated with treatment were assessed from healthcare payer and societal perspectives. Costs were estimated from data collected at a university hospital and were combined with decision impact data for Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Prosigna and EndoPredict (EPclin). Changes in chemotherapy use and budget impact were evaluated over 1 year for 20,000 women. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was associated with substantial annual costs of EUR 19,003 and EUR 84,412 per therapy from the healthcare payer and societal perspective, respectively. Compared with standard care, only Oncotype DX was associated with cost savings to healthcare payers and society (EUR 5.9 million and EUR 253 million, respectively). Scenario analysis showed that both women at high clinical but low genomic risk and low clinical but high genomic risk were important contributors to costs. CONCLUSIONS: Oncotype DX was the only gene expression test that was estimated to reduce costs versus standard care in Germany. The reimbursement of Oncotype DX testing in standard clinical practice in Germany should be considered.

Clinical evaluation of postoperative chemotherapy based on genetic testing in patients with stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate whether a postoperative chemotherapy selection method based on four tumoral gene expression tests would improve prognosis in patients with stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after surgery. METHODS: Between January 2007 and July 2011, 148 patients with stage IIIA NSCLC underwent radical lobectomy with four cycles of adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy. Forty-five patients had tailored treatment plans based on the results of tumoral gene expression tests. The tests consisted of quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analyses to measure the messenger ribonucleic acid levels of the excision repair cross-complementing gene 1, ribonucleotide reductase Ml, type III ß-tubulin, and thymidylate synthase genes in tumor tissues. One hundred and three patients received conventional chemotherapy. Disease responses were assessed after two cycles and every three months after the first four cycles of chemotherapy. The one and two-year survival rates and diesease-free survival (DFS) rates were recorded, and the adverse effects documented. RESULTS: The one and two-year DFS rates in the genetically tested group were better than those in the non-tested group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The two-year Kaplan-Meier DFS curve analysis results were significantly better in the genetically tested group (X(2) = 8.228, P = 0.004). The adverse effects during the treatments were not significantly different (P > 0.05) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The chemotherapy selection method based on four tumoral gene expression tests demonstrated its feasibility to improve the efficacy of adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy and benefit stage IIIA NSCLC patients by yielding better DFS without increasing the adverse effects of chemotherapy.

Potential clinical utility of gene-expression profiling in identifying tumors of uncertain origin.

AIM: To evaluate the potential impact of a gene-expression-based test on the diagnosis of primary tumors in difficult-to-diagnose cases. MATERIALS & METHODS: The Tissue of Origin Test uses 2000 gene measurements to classify the most likely primary tumor. We categorized 284 consecutive samples by pretest diagnosis, then recategorized the samples using test results to identify cases with changes in diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 64% of incoming diagnoses were nonspecific. A leading diagnosis for the primary site was provided for remaining cases, indicating an unresolved differential. Overall, the test predicted a change in the most likely primary site, either a change from nonspecific to specific site or a change from one specific primary site to another in 81% of the cases and confirmed the suspected primary site for 15% of cases. CONCLUSION: A new molecular diagnostic has the potential to change both primary site identification and therapy selection for the majority of patients tested.