Gene-expression assays: New tools to individualize treatment of early-stage breast cancer
ABSTRACT The clinical and economic data for the two currently available gene-expression assays are reviewed.
Two gene-expression assays, used to determine the risk of breast cancer recurrence in patients with stage I or II node-negative breast cancer, are currently available. Oncotype DX is an assay performed on RNA extracted from paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. It analyzes the expression of 21 genes: 16 cancer-related genes and 5 reference genes. The results are used to calculate a recurrence score to identify the likelihood of cancer recurrence in patients treated with tamoxifen. The results of two studies evaluating the ability of Oncotype DX to predict the risk of breast cancer recurrence suggest that patients with ER-positive, node-negative breast cancer and a low recurrence score may need only adjuvant treatment with tamoxifen, while intermediate- and high-risk patients may require additional treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy. MammaPrint, an oligonucleotide microassay performed on fresh-frozen tumor samples, analyzes the expression of 70 genes. Studies have found that MammaPrint allows young patients (<61 years) with early-stage breast cancer to be categorized as having a high or low risk of distant metastasis. High-risk patients may then be managed with more aggressive therapy.
Two gene-expression assays, Oncotype DX and MammaPrint, have been developed to determine the risk of breast cancer recurrence in patients with stage I or II node-negative breast cancer. In the future, these tests may be useful in determining the need for systemic adjuvant therapy in such patients.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There has been significant progress made in individualizing cancer therapy, especially for colorectal and breast cancer. This has included objective determination of aggressiveness of therapy using molecular predictors of disease recurrence (i.e., Mammaprint, OncotypeDX), identifying altered drug activation for dose modifications (i.e., DPYD, CYP2D6, UGT1A1), or variation in drug targets or components of a pharmacodynamic pathway (TYMS, EGFR, KRAS). With patient-specific molecular characteristics increasingly guiding therapy, this review provides important and timely insights on targeted therapy. Ultimately, integration of both pharmacogenomic and clinical characteristics can provide powerful predictive tools for stratifying responders from nonresponders and identifying patients at increased risk for toxicity.The Cancer Journal 01/2011; 17(2):80-8. DOI:10.1097/PPO.0b013e3182147432 · 3.61 Impact Factor
- Annals of Oncology 05/2008; 19(4):822-4. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdn043 · 6.58 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The authors contend that the crisis facing the U.S. health care system is in large part a consequence of that system's disease-oriented, reactive, and sporadic approach to care, and they suggest that a prospective approach to health care, which emphasizes personalized medicine and strategic health planning, would be a more rational way to prevent disease and maximize health. During recent years, personalized, predictive, preventive, and participatory medicine--that is, prospective care--has been receiving increasing attention as a solution to the U.S. health care crisis. Advocacy has been mainly from industry, government, large employers, and private insurers. However, academic medicine, as a whole, has not played a leading role in this movement. The authors believe that academic medicine has the opportunity and responsibility to play a far greater role in the conception and development of better models to deliver health care. In doing so, it could lead the transformation of today's dysfunctional system of medical care to that of a prospective approach that emphasizes personalization, prediction, prevention, and patient participation. Absent contributing to improving how care is delivered, academic medicine's leadership in our nation's health will be bypassed.Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 09/2008; 83(8):707-14. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31817ec800 · 3.47 Impact Factor