Genomic profile of breast cancer: cost–effectiveness analysis from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

References

• Cancer Strategy of the National Health System. Ministry of Health and Social Policy. 2010. Available from: www.msssi.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/pdf/ActualizacionEstrategiaCancer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sant M, Allemani C, Santaquilani M, et al. EUROCARE4. Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995-1999. Results and commentary. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:931-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spanish National Statistics Institute. Mortality by cause of death. 2010. Available from: www.ine.es
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Angulo M, Arroyo-Yustos M, Villalobos-León ML, Álvarez de Mon Soto M. [Breast Cancer]. Medicine 2013;11(27):1629-40
   Google Scholar
• Espinosa E, Gámez-Pozo A, Sánchez-Navarro I, et al. The present and future of gene profiling in breast cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2012;31(1-2):41-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(4):980-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adjuvant! Online®. Available from: www.adjuvantonline.com/index.jsp
   Google Scholar
• Eroles P, Bosch A, Pérez-Fidalgo JA, Lluch A. Molecular biology in breast cancer: intrinsic subtypes and signaling pathways. Cancer Treat Rev 2012;38(6):698-707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98(17):1183-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(27):2817-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retèl VP, et al. A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 2013;133(4):929-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann S, Gerber B, Elling D, et al. The 70-gene signature as prognostic factor for elderly women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Breast Care (Basel) 2012;7(1):19-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, et al. The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phase. Eur J Cancer 2011;47(18):2742-9
   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(23):3726-34
   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(1):133-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ademuyiwa FO, Miller A, O’Connor T, et al. The effects of oncotype DX recurrence scores on chemotherapy utilization in a multi-institutional breast cancer cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;126(3):797-802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partin JF and Mamounas EP. Impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay compared with standard clinicopathologic guidelines in adjuvant therapy selection for node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18(12):3399-406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arpino G, Generali D, Sapino A, et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: a clinical perspective. Breast 2013;22(2):109-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antoñanzas-Villar FJ, Oliva J, Velasco M, et al. [Direct and indirect cost of cancer in Spain]. Cuadernos económicos de ICE 2006;72:281-309
   Google Scholar
• Yang M, Rajan S, Issa AM. Cost effectiveness of gene expression profiling for early stage breast cancer: a decision-analytic model. Cancer 2012;118(20):5163-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F, et al. [A proposed guideline for economic evaluation of health technologies]. Gac Sanit 2010;24:154-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TreeAge Software, Inc. TreeAge software. 2011. Available from: www.treeage.com
   Google Scholar
• Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Peto R, Davies C, et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012;379(9814):432-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. A decision-analysis model. N Engl J Med 1991;324:160-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 2005. p. 137-204
   Google Scholar
• Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, Linden HM, et al. Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med 2005;7:380-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte S, Cooper KL, Stevenson MD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom. Value Health 2011;14(4):465-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín M, Seguí MA, Antón A, et al. Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363(23):2200-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones S, Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy J, et al. Docetaxel With cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of us oncology research trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(8):1177-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman JA, et al. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and Fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel versus Doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by Paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(1):77-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gisbert R, Brosa M. Spanish health costs database esalud. oblikue consulting, S.L. 2013. Available from: www.oblikue.com/bddcostes
   Google Scholar
• General Council of Pharmaceutical Associations of Spain Database. Available from: www.Portalfarma.com
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Jiménez M, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Ruiz-Borrego M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel (Taxotere) vs. 5-fluorouracil in combined therapy in the initial phases of breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2009;11(1):41-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost–effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17(5):479-500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacristán JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, et al. What is an efficient health technology in Spain? Gac Sanit 2002;16:334-43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen E, Tong KB, Malin JL. Cost-effectiveness of 70-gene MammaPrint® signature in node-negative breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2010;16(12):e333-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retèl VP, Joore MA, Knauer M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and adjuvant! online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:1382-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retèl VP, Joore MA, van Harten WH. Head-to-head comparison of the 70-gene signature versus the 21-gene assay: cost-effectiveness and the effect of compliance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;131(2):627-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retèl VP, Joore MA, Drukker CA, et al. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of genomic profiling in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2013;49(18):3773-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zujewski JA, Kamin L. Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: the TAILORx trial. Future Oncol 2008;4(5):603-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso F, Van’t Veer L, Rutgers E, et al. Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(5):729-35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. Expression of the 21 genes in the Recurrence Score assay and tamoxifen clinical benefit in the NSABP study B-14 of node negative, estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(16):510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partridge AH, Wang PS, Winer EP, Avorn J. Nonadherence to adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in women with primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(4):602-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demissie S, Silliman RA, Lash TL. Adjuvant tamoxifen: predictors of use, side effects, and discontinuation in older women. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(2):322-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owusu C, Buist DS, Field TS, et al. Predictors of tamoxifen discontinuation among older women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(4):549-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink AK, Gurwitz J, Rakowski W, et al. Patient beliefs and tamoxifen discontinuance in older women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(16):3309-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lash TL, Fox MP, Westrup JL, et al. Adherence to tamoxifen over the five-year course. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;99(2):215-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002;415(6871):530-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1999-2009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar