Utility of prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Consensus Statement

Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory (BCTL), J.C. Heuson , Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Annals of Oncology (Impact Factor: 6.58). 01/2013; 24(3). DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds645
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background
We critically evaluated the available evidence on genomic tests in breast cancer to define their prognostic ability and likelihood to determine treatment benefit.DesignIndependent evaluation of six genomic tests [Oncotype Dx™, MammaPrint(®), Genomic Grade Index, PAM50 (ROR-S), Breast Cancer Index, and EndoPredict] was carried out by a panel of experts in three parameters: analytical validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility based on the principles of the EGAPP criteria.Panel statementsThe majority of the working group members found the available evidence on the analytical and clinical validity of Oncotype Dx™ and MammaPrint(®) to be convincing. None of the genomic tests demonstrated robust evidence of clinical utility: it was not clear from the current evidence that modifying treatment decisions based on the results of a given genomic test could result in improving clinical outcome.Conclusions
The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group proposed the following recommendations: (i) a need to develop models that integrate clinicopathologic factors along with genomic tests; (ii) demonstration of clinical utility should be made in the context of a prospective randomized trial; and (iii) the creation of registries for patients who are subjected to genomic testing in the daily practice.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite early predictions and rapid progress in research, the introduction of personal genomics into clinical practice has been slow. Several factors contribute to this translational gap between knowledge and clinical application. The evidence available to support genetic test use is often limited, and implementation of new testing programs can be challenging. In addition, the heterogeneity of genomic risk information points to the need for strategies to select and deliver the information most appropriate for particular clinical needs. Accomplishing these tasks also requires recognition that some expectations for personal genomics are unrealistic, notably expectations concerning the clinical utility of genomic risk assessment for common complex diseases. Efforts are needed to improve the body of evidence addressing clinical outcomes for genomics, apply implementation science to personal genomics, and develop realistic goals for genomic risk assessment. In addition, translational research should emphasize the broader benefits of genomic knowledge, including applications of genomic research that provide clinical benefit outside the context of personal genomic risk.
    PLoS Genetics 02/2015; 11(2):e1004978. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004978 · 8.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer arising at a young age is relatively uncommon, particularly in the developed world. Several studies have demonstrated that younger patients often experience a more aggressive disease course and have poorer outcome compared to older women. Expression of key biomarkers, including endocrine receptors, HER2 and proliferation markers, appears to be different in younger patients and young women are more likely to harbor a genetic predisposition. Despite these differences, little research to date has focused on the biology of these tumors to refine prognosis, and potentially direct treatment strategies, which remain similar to those offered to older patients. Accumulating evidence suggests the differences in breast stroma in younger patients and changes that occur with pregnancy and breastfeeding likely contribute to the different biology of these tumors. Reproductive behaviors appear to impact the biology of tumors developing later in life. In addition, tumors arising during or shortly following pregnancy appear to exhibit unique biological features. In this review, we discuss our emerging understanding of the biology of breast cancer arising at a young age at both the pathologic and the genomic level. We elucidate the potential role of genomic signatures, the impact of pregnancy and breastfeeding on breast cancer biology, and how even current knowledge might advance the clinical management of young breast cancer patients.
    Breast cancer research: BCR 08/2014; 16(4):427. DOI:10.1186/s13058-014-0427-5 · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To conduct an economic evaluation of the 70-gene signature used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decision making both in patients with node-negative breast cancer (NNBC) and in the subgroup of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a mixed approach combining patient-level data from a multicenter validation study of the 70-gene signature (untreated patients) and secondary sources for chemotherapy efficacy, unit costs, and utility values. Three strategies on which to base the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy were compared: the 70-gene signature, Adjuvant! Online, and chemotherapy in all patients. In the base-case analysis, costs from the French National Insurance Scheme, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed for the three strategies over a 10-year period. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves using the net monetary benefit were computed, combining bootstrap and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The mean differences in LYs and QALYs were similar between the three strategies. The 70-gene signature strategy was associated with a higher cost, with a mean difference of €2,037 (range, €1,472 to €2,515) compared with Adjuvant! Online and of €657 (95% CI, -€642 to €3,130) compared with systematic chemotherapy. For a €50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of being the most cost-effective strategy was 92% (76% in ER-positive patients) for the Adjuvant! Online strategy, 6% (4% in ER-positive patients) for the systematic chemotherapy strategy, and 2% (20% in ER-positive patients) for the 70-gene strategy. CONCLUSION: Optimizing adjuvant chemotherapy decision making based on the 70-gene signature is unlikely to be cost effective in patients with NNBC.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/2014; 32(31). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2013.54.9931 · 17.88 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 3, 2014