Using the 21-gene assay to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making in early-stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the German setting

References

• Katalinic A, Pritzkuleit R, Waldmann A. Recent trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality in Germany. Breast Care (Basel) 2009;4:75-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistisches Bundesamt. Gesundheit - Krankheitskosten, 2002, 2004 und 2006. 2008. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt
   Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady BL, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, Jacobs P, Stewart D. A longitudinal prospective study of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2005;36:251-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Breast Cancer Network. Breast cancer: Economic impact and labour force re-entry. May 2010. http://www.cbcn.ca/index.php?pageaction=content.page&id=2912&lang=en. Accessed November 17, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Peugniez C, Fantoni S, Leroyer A, et al. Return to work after treatment for breast cancer: single center experience in a cohort of 273 patients. Bull Cancer 2011;98:E69-79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3726-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365:1687-717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassett MJ, Hughes ME, Niland JC, et al. Chemotherapy use for hormone receptor–positive, lymph node–negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5553-60
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eierman W, Rezai M, Kümmel S, et al. The 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Impacts Adjuvant Therapy Recommendations for ER-positive, Node-negative and Node-positive Early Breast Cancer Resulting in a Risk-adapted Change in Chemotherapy Use. Ann Oncol 2012, in press
   Google Scholar
• Blohmer JU, Kühn T, Rezai M, et al German multicentre decision impact study of Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score® (RS) on adjuvant treatment in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) node negative (N0) and node positive (N+) early breast cancer. Abstract #P206 presented at 2011 SG-BCC - 12th International St. Gallen Breast Cancer Conference, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 2011
   Google Scholar
• Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2817-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with Anastrozole or Tamoxifen: A TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1829-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in a randomized trial of chemotherapy for postmenopausal, node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:55-65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornberger J, Chien R. Meta-analysis of the decision impact of the 21-gene breast cancer recurrence score in clinical practice. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 2010. Poster Presentation #P3-09-06
   Google Scholar
• Holt S, Bertelli G, Brinkworth E, et al. Results from a prospective clinical study on the impact of Oncotype DX® on adjuvant treatment decision in a cohort of 142 UK patients. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 2011. Abstract Presentation #P5-14-26
   Google Scholar
• Yamauchi H, Nakagawa C, Yamashige S, et al. Decision impact and economic evaluation of the 21-gene Recurrence Score® assay for physicians and patients in Japan. Poster presented at the annual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress. 2011. Abstract Presentation
   Google Scholar
• De Boer RH, Baker C, Speakman, Mann B. Australian Decision Impact Study: The impact of Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (RS) on adjuvant treatment decisions in hormone receptor positive (HR+), node negative and node positive (N+9 early breast cancer (ESBC) in the multidisciplinary clinic. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 2011. Abstract Presentation #P4-09-18
   Google Scholar
• Semmel A, Coy P. Kostenersparnis durch die Anwendung von Oncotype DX. Asklepios Paulinen Klinik, Präsentation vom 4 August 2011
   Google Scholar
• Paepke S, Völkel P, Munte A, et al. Oncotype DX Mammakarzinom-Recurrence-Score in der klinischen Routinediagnostik – Benefi t für Patientin und Gesundheitssystem. Poster 7 Senology Conference Dresden. 2011
   Google Scholar
• Holt SDH, Bennett H, Bertelli G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the Oncotype DX® breast cancer assay in clinical practice in the UK. Poster presented at the 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. December 6–10, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Hornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. 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 2005;11:313-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas RJ, Williams M, Marshall C, et al. The total hospital and community UK costs of managing patients with relapsed breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2009;100:598-600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eiermann W, Rezai M, Kümmel S, et al. The economic burden of adjuvant chemotherapy in Germany. Poster presented at the 14th Annual European Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in Madrid, Spain. November 5–8, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Lux MP, Wöckel A, Benedict A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole versus tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer—a health-economic analysis based on the 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial and the German health system. Onkologie 2010;33:155-66
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conner-Spady BL, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, et al. A longitudinal prospective study of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2005;36:251-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne RJ, Heaton-Brown KH, Hansen P, et al. Quality-of-life valuations of advanced breast cancer by New Zealand women. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:281-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J. Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010;10:553-66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQWIG Report. Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German statutory health care system. 2008. https://www.iqwig.de/download/08-10-14_Draft_Methods_of_the_Relation_of_Benefits_to_Costs_v_1_1.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2012
   Google Scholar
• Simes RJ, Coates AS. Patient preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: how much benefit is needed? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001;30:146–52
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Breast Cancer Network. Breast Cancer: Economic impact and labour force re-entry. May 2010. http://www.cbcn.ca/index.php?pageaction=content.page&id=2912&lang=en. Accessed November 17, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Peugniez C, Fantoni S, Leroyer A, et al. Return to work after treatment for breast cancer: single center experience in a cohort of 273 patients. Bull Cancer 2011;98:E69-79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klang SH, Hammerman A, Liebermann N, et al. Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an Israeli-managed health-care organization. Value Health 2010;13:381-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Yamanaka T, et al. Economic evaluation of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in lymph node-negative/positive, hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer based on Japanese validation study (JBCRG-TR03). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;127:739-49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsoi DT, Inoue M, Kelly CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist 2010;15:457-65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madaras B, Rózsa P, Gerencsér Z, et al. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the Oncotype DX® multigene assay in Hungary. Poster Presentation at the 12th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference. 16–19 March, 2011. St. Gallen, Switzerland
   Google Scholar
• de Lima Lopez G, Chien R, Hornberger J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 21-gene Recurrence Score® for early stage breast cancer in Singapore. Poster Presentation at the 12th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference. 16–19 March, 2011. St. Gallen, Switzerland
   Google Scholar
• Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, et al. 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 2007;109:1011-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang G, Shak S, Paik S, et al. Comparison of the prognostic and predictive utilities of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;127:133-42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar