scholarly journals Clinical utility of gene-expression profiling in women with early breast cancer: an overview of systematic reviews

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 519-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Marrone ◽  
Alison Stewart ◽  
W. David Dotson
2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10-10
Author(s):  
Yvonne Bombard ◽  
Linda Rozmovits ◽  
Maureen E. Trudeau ◽  
Natasha B. Leighl ◽  
Ken Deal ◽  
...  

10 Background: Genomic information is increasingly used to personalize health care. One example is gene-expression profiling (GEP) tests that estimate recurrence risk to inform chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer treatment. Recently, GEP tests were publicly funded in Ontario. We assessed the clinical utility of GEP tests, exploring the factors facilitating their use and value in treatment decision-making. Methods: As part of a mixed-methods clinical utility study, we conducted interviews with oncologists (n=14), and focus groups and interviews with breast cancer patients (n=28) who underwent GEP, recruited through oncology clinics in Ontario. Data were analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison. Results: Various factors governing access to GEP have given rise to challenges for patients and oncologists. Oncologists are positioned as gatekeepers of GEP, providing access in medically appropriate cases. However, varying perceptions of appropriateness led to perceived inequities in access and negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. Media attention facilitated patient awareness of GEP but complicated gatekeeping. Additional administration burden and long waits for results led to increased patient anxiety and delayed treatment. Collectively, these factors inadvertently heightened GEP’s perceived value for patients relative to other prognostic indicators because of barriers to access. Conclusions: This study delineates the factors facilitating and restricting access to GEP, and highlights the roles of the media and organization of services in GEP’s perceived value and utilization. Results identify a need for administrative changes and practice guidelines to support streamlined and standardized utilization of the test.


2011 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A Bender ◽  
Femke A de Snoo ◽  
◽  

Microarray gene expression profiling in the diagnostic setting offers the opportunity of reading out multiple profiles and genes from a single array. Several additional profiles have been added to the Agendia breast cancer suite called Symphony(TM), along with MammaPrint, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared prognostic and predictive assay, by virtue of this technology. These additional profiles, TargetPrint, BluePrint, and TheraPrint, expand the clinical utility of the Symphony profile. They also demonstrate the versatility of gene expression profiling in the diagnostic setting, enabling the addition of many more clinically relevant profiles (such as drug response profiles) as experience grows.


Author(s):  
Alison Scope ◽  
Munira Essat ◽  
Abdullah Pandor ◽  
Rachid Rafia ◽  
Sue E. Ward ◽  
...  

Objectives:The aim of this report was to assess the clinical effectiveness of two Gene expression profiling (GEP) and two expanded immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests compared with current prognostic tools in guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer.Methods:A systematic review of the evidence on clinical effectiveness of OncotypeDX, IHC4, MammaPrint, and Mammostrat, compared with current clinical practice using clinicopathological parameters, in women with early breast cancer was conducted. Ten databases were searched to include citations to May 2016.Results:Searches identified 7,064 citations, of which forty-one citations satisfied the criteria for the review. A narrative synthesis was performed. Evidence for OncotypeDX demonstrated the impact of the test on decision making and there was some support for OncotypeDX predicting chemotherapy benefit. There were relatively lower levels of evidence for the other three tests included in the analysis. MammaPrint, Mammostrat, and IHC4 tests were limited to a small number of studies. Limitations in relation to study design were identified for all tests.Conclusions:The evidence base for OncotypeDX is considered to be the most robust. Methodological weaknesses relating to heterogeneity of patient cohorts and issues arising from the retrospective nature of the evidence were identified. Further evidence is required for all of the tests using prospective randomized controlled trial data.


2017 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 270-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Schreuder ◽  
A. Kuijer ◽  
E.J. Th. Rutgers ◽  
C.H. Smorenburg ◽  
Th. van Dalen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document