A randomised controlled trial of Pre-Operative Oncotype DX testing in early-stage breast cancer (PRE-DX study) - Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Oncotype DX® Breast Recurrence Score assay can guide recommendations made to patients with oestrogen receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer regarding post-surgery adjuvant therapy. Standard practice is to order the test in the post-operative setting on a specimen from the excised invasive carcinoma. However, it has been shown to be technically possible to perform the test on the diagnostic core biopsy. By testing the diagnostic core biopsy in the pre-operative setting, the wait for excised invasive carcinoma Recurrence Score results could be reduced allowing patients to be more accurately counselled regarding their treatment pathway sooner with any adjuvant treatment recommendations expedited. This would allow for more efficient streaming of follow up appointments. The aim of this study is to compare the impact on the patient treatment pathway of performing the Oncotype DX® test on the diagnostic core biopsy pre-operatively (intervention) as opposed to the excised invasive carcinoma (control). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This parallel group randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 330 newly diagnosed patients with grade 2 or grade 3, ER+, HER2-, invasive intermediate risk early-stage breast cancer. Participants will be randomised 2:1 to the preoperative testing of the diagnostic core biopsy compared to the post-operative testing of the excision specimen. The primary endpoint is number of clinical touchpoints between treating team and patient from initial approach until offer and prescription of the first adjuvant treatment. Secondary endpoints include time from diagnosis to offer and prescription of the first adjuvant treatment, patient-reported anxiety scores and health cost impact analysis collected at baseline, following the post-operative clinic and following the offer of adjuvant treatment, and number of alterations in treatment sequence from original planned surgical treatment to neoadjuvant therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN14337451) on the 16th August 2022.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test in Node-Negative Early Breast Cancer.

Background: The 21-gene assay (the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test) is a validated multigene assay which produces the Recurrence Score® result (RS) to inform decisions on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), hormone receptor positive (HR+) early invasive breast cancer. A model-based economic evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay against the use of clinical risk tools alone based on the latest evidence from prospective studies. Methods: The proportion of patients assigned to chemotherapy conditional on their RS result was obtained from retrospective data from the Clalit registry. The probability of distant recurrence with endocrine and chemo-endocrine therapy conditional on RS result was obtained from TAILORx and NSABP B-20 trials. The cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay compared to using clinical risk tools alone was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon. Results: The 21-gene assay was more effective (0.17 more quality-adjusted life years) at a lower cost (-£519) over a lifetime compared to clinical risk alone. The model results were sensitive to assumptions around the magnitude of benefit of chemotherapy in the high RS result subgroup. Other assumptions underpinning the model, such as the proportion of patients assigned to chemotherapy in the low and mid-range RS result subgroups and long-term distant recurrence probabilities, had a smaller impact on the results. Conclusion: The analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay is sensitive to assumptions for chemotherapy sparing for patients with RS 0-25 whose outcomes with endocrine therapy are no worse compared to chemotherapy-assigned patients, and a chemotherapy benefit in the RS 26-100 group. Future studies need to incorporate a wider set of tumour profiling tests other than the 21-gene assay to allow a direct comparison of their cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test in node-positive early breast cancer.

AIMS: Given the high rate of adverse events and high cost of adjuvant chemotherapy, it is optimal to avoid its use when endocrine therapy is equally effective at preventing distant recurrence of early breast cancer. The Oncotype DX test is a predictive and prognostic multigene assay used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer based on a Recurrence Score (RS) result. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis compared the Oncotype DX test to clinical risk tools alone for HR+/HER2- node-positive (1-3 axillary lymph nodes) early breast cancer patients based on results from the RxPONDER trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-tree and Markov model was developed in Microsoft Excel. Distributions of patients and distant recurrence probabilities with endocrine and chemo-endocrine therapy were derived from the RxPONDER trial, TransATAC and SWOG-8814. Chemotherapy assignment data were obtained from the Clalit registry. The cost of adjuvant chemotherapy was based on the distribution of treatments used in the UK combined with published drug unit costs in the UK. The cost of distant recurrence and health state utility values were obtained from literature. RESULTS: The Oncotype DX test was found to be more effective (with an estimated 0.02 additional QALYs) at a lower estimated cost (-£989) compared to clinical risk tools alone. The results did not substantially change with more conservative clinical and cost scenarios. The RxPONDER trial was restricted to RS 0-25, and data synthesis with other studies was required to inform the analysis, which increased uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The Oncotype DX test is highly likely to be cost-effective in node-positive early breast cancer. The results were driven by reduction in the use of chemotherapy with consequence avoidance of the costs and harmful effects of chemotherapy. Targeted treatment of a minority (11%) of women with RS 26-100 who benefit from chemotherapy reduced cost and improved survival.

Eformoterol Turbohaler compared with salmeterol by dry powder inhaler in asthmatic children not controlled on inhaled corticosteroids.

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of the inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists eformoterol and salmeterol when added to existing inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy in symptomatic asthmatic children. This randomized, 12-week, parallel-group study, performed in a primary care setting, included 156 children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) with moderate persistent asthma. Patients were randomized to open-label eformoterol (Oxis) Turbohaler 9 microg (delivered dose) or salmeterol Accuhaler 50 microg, both b.i.d, added to current ICS. Assessments included: changes in daytime reliever beta2-agonist therapy (primary variable), total 24-h reliever use, lung function, clinic and diary symptom scores, patient and carer health-related quality of life (HRQL) and adverse events. Daytime reliever use decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from baseline by 65% and 52%, respectively in the eformoterol and salmeterol treatment groups. Compared with salmeterol, eformoterol produced a greater decrease in daytime (-0.46 inhalations/day; p = 0.081) and 24-h (-0.70 inhalations/day; p = 0.043) reliever use. The percentage of patients who did not require any reliever medication during the study was significantly higher in the eformoterol group (p < 0.05 vs. salmeterol at weeks 8 and 12). Clinic and diary card peak expiratory flow and symptom measures all improved from baseline in both treatment arms. There was a significantly greater effect in favour of eformoterol for the reduction in clinic-assessed overall night-time symptoms (p < 0.05 vs. salmeterol). Clinically relevant improvements in patient-assessed HRQL occurred during treatment with eformoterol and salmeterol, but carer-assessed HRQL was improved to a clinically relevant extent, only with eformoterol. Both treatments were well tolerated. In children and adolescents with moderate persistent asthma, add-on therapy with eformoterol was well tolerated and at least as effective as salmeterol.