Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
Originally published on February 4, 2008.
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Full Text of this article Free
space
 arrow  PDF of this article
(PDFs free after 6 months)
space
All Versions of this Article:
  arrow 148/5/358 (most recent)
  arrow 0000605-200803040-00208v1
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Related articles in Annals
space
box Services
 arrow 
pier article
Related Clinical
Content
space
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Published comments/rapid response letters
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Marchionni, L.
space
  arrow  Goodman, S. N.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

REVIEW

Systematic Review: Gene Expression Profiling Assays in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

right arrow Luigi Marchionni, MD, PhD; Renee F. Wilson, MSc; Antonio C. Wolff, MD; Spyridon Marinopoulos, MD, MBA; Giovanni Parmigiani, PhD; Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH; and Steven N. Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD

4 March 2008 | Volume 148 Issue 5 | Pages 358-369

Background: Three gene expression–based prognostic breast cancer tests have been licensed for use.

Purpose: To summarize evidence on the validity and utility of 3 gene expression–based prognostic breast cancer tests: Oncotype DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, California), MammaPrint (Agendia BV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and H/I (AvariaDX, Carlsbad, California).

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (from 1990 through January 2007), Web sites of test manufacturers, and discussion with the manufacturers.

Study Selection: Original data studies published in English that addressed prognostic accuracy and discrimination or treatment benefit prediction of any of the 3 tests in women with breast cancer.

Data Extraction: Information was extracted about the clinical characteristics of the study population (particularly clinical and therapeutic homogeneity), tumor characteristics, and whether the marketed test or underlying signature was evaluated.

Data Synthesis: The tests are based on distinct gene lists, using 2 different technologies. Overall, the body of evidence showed that this new generation of tests may improve prognostic and therapeutic prediction, but the tests are at different stages of development. Evidence shows that the tests offer clinically relevant, improved risk stratification over standard predictors. Oncotype DX has the strongest evidence, closely followed by MammaPrint and H/I (which is still maturing).

Limitations: For all tests, the relationship of predicted to observed risk in different populations and their incremental contribution over conventional predictors, optimal implementation, and relevance to patients receiving current therapies need further study.

Conclusion: Gene expression technologies show great promise to improve predictions of prognosis and treatment benefit for women with early-stage breast cancer. More information is needed on the extent of improvement in prediction, characteristics of women in whom the tests should be used, and how best to incorporate test results into decision making about breast cancer treatment.

Author and Article Information
space

From Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Disclaimer: The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Grant Support: This project was funded under contract no. 290-02-0018 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.

Requests for Single Reprints: Steven N. Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 550 Building, Room 11-03, Baltimore, MD 21205; e-mail, sgoodman{at}jhmi.edu.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Marchionni and Wolff: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Oncology Cancer Biology, Baltimore, MD 21287.

Ms. Wilson, Dr. Marinopoulos, and Dr. Bass: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, General Internal Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287.

Dr. Parmigiani: Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine Oncology Informatics, Baltimore, MD 21287.

Dr. Goodman: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Oncology Biostatistics, Baltimore, MD 21287.


Related articles in Annals:

Letters
Are Short-Term or Long-Term Recurrence Rates More Important in Breast Cancer Screening?
Emiel J.T. Rutgers, Lajos Pusztai, AND René Bernards
Annals 2008 149: 357. [Full Text]  

Letters
Are Short-Term or Long-Term Recurrence Rates More Important in Breast Cancer Screening?
Steven N. Goodman, Luigi Marchionni, AND Antonio C. Wolff
Annals 2008 149: 357-358. [Full Text]  



Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Letter to the Editor
Lawrence C. Panasci, et al.
Annals Online, 18 Mar 2008 [Full text]
Reaction to Systematic Review: Gene Expression Profiling Assays in Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Rene Bernards, et al.
Annals Online, 5 May 2008 [Full text]
Author's response to letter from Bernard
Steven N. Goodman, et al.
Annals Online, 9 Jun 2008 [Full text]



 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online 

Copyright © 2008 by the American College of Physicians.