Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 627–636 | Cite as

Head-to-head comparison of the 70-gene signature versus the 21-gene assay: cost-effectiveness and the effect of compliance

  • Valesca P. Retèl
  • Manuela A. Joore
  • Wim H. van HartenEmail author
Epidemiology

Abstract

Both the 70-gene signature and the 21-gene assay are novel prognostic tests used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in patients with early breast cancer. Although the results of ongoing prospective trials will only become available in some years, the tests have already been included in clinical guidelines such as St. Gallen’s. In literature, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of both tests as compared to conventional prognostic tests has been described. We report on a direct comparison of CE; as different compliance rates were reported, we also taken these into account. A Markov decision model with a time horizon of 20 years was developed to assess the effects, costs and CE of three alternatives; 21-gene, 70-gene, and St. Gallen (SG) or Adjuvant Online (AO), dependent on the dataset used in patients with early, node-negative, breast cancer. Sensitivity and specificity were based on two datasets, incorporating compliances rates based on literature. For both datasets, whereas the 70-gene signature yielded more quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and was less costly; the 21-gene amounted more life years (LYs) but was more costly. The decision uncertainty surrounding the probability of CE of the Thomassen-series amounted 55% for both cost/LY and cost/QALY, for the Fan-series 80% for LY and 65% for QALYs. Taking reported compliance with discordant test results into account, in general, the effect of all strategies decreased, while the costs increased, without relatively influencing the CEA performance. This comparison indicates that the performances of the 70-gene and the 21-gene based on reported studies are close. The 21-gene has the highest probability of being cost-effective when focusing on cost/LY, while focusing on cost/QALY, the 70-gene signature was most cost-effective. The level of compliance can have serious impact on the CE. With additional data, preferably from head-to-head outcome studies and especially on compliance concerning discordant test results, calculations can be made with higher degrees of certainty.

Keywords

Head-to-head comparison 70-gene signature MammaPrint 21-gene recurrence score Oncotype DX Cost-effectiveness analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Prof. Dr. EJT Rutgers and Dr. SC Linn for their contribution to this manuscript. This study was funded by the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (DHCIB, CVZ), the Netherlands. The DHCIB had no role in the study design and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and the writing of the article and the decision to submit it for publication.

Conflict of interest

W.H. van Harten is a non-remunerated, non-stake holding member of the supervisory board of Agendia BV. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10549_2011_1769_MOESM1_ESM.doc (720 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 720 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cardoso F, Van’t Veer L, Rutgers E et al (2008) Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 26:729–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sparano JA, Paik S (2008) Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26:721–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ et al (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:980–991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD et al (2009) Threshold for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 20:1319–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH (2005) Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 11:313–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM et al (2007) Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 109:1011–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H et al (2008) Economic evaluation of 21-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112:175–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsoi DT, Inoue M, Kelly CM et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist 15:457–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, Linden HM et al (2005) Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med 7:380–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Retèl VP, Joore MA, Knauer M et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant Online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 46:1382–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marchionni L, Wilson RF, Wolff AC et al (2008) Systematic review: gene expression profiling assays in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 148:358–369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomassen M, Tan Q, Eiriksdottir F et al (2007) Comparison of gene sets for expression profiling: prediction of metastasis from low-malignant breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13(18):5355–5360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L et al (2006) Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:560–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grutters JPC, Seferina SC, Tjan-Heijnen VCG et al (2011) Bridging trial and decision: a checklist to frame health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Value Health 14(5):777–784Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD et al (2003) Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:3357–3365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rutgers E, Piccart M, Delaloge S et al (2010) The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: first results of the pilot phase (Abstract 444). Eur J Cancer Suppl 8(3):188Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH (2000) Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en richtlijnprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. College voor zorgverzekeringen, AmstelveenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weinstein MC (2006) Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1043–1053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M (2001) Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 10:779–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    (2006) Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg: Zinnige en duurzame zorg [Sensible and durable care]. Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, Zoetermeer (in Dutch). Available at: http://rvz.net/uploads/docs/Advies_-_Zinnige_en_duurzame_zorg.pdf
  24. 24.
    Lothgren M, Zethraeus N (2000) Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 9:623–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Piette F et al (2008) Comparison of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer. BMC Genomics 9:394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten W, Retel V et al (2007) Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol 8:1079–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lo SS, Mumby PB, Norton J et al (2010) Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J Clin Oncol 28:1671–1676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Earle CC, Coyle D, Evans WK (1998) Cost-effectiveness analysis in oncology. Ann Oncol 9:475–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tengs TO, Wallace A (2000) One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38:583–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, Stam W (2008) Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health 11(5):956–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brauchli P, Thürlimann B, Crowe SN, Hermann R (2010) What is the value of the 21-gene recurrence score? J Clin Oncol 28(32):671–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valesca P. Retèl
    • 1
  • Manuela A. Joore
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wim H. van Harten
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Psychosocial Research and EpidemiologyNetherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Health, Organization, Policy and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology AssessmentMaastricht University Medical CenterMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.School of Governance and Management, MB-HTSRUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations