Medical Policy: 02.04.59 

Original Effective Date: August 2016 

Reviewed: August 2017 

Revised: August 2017 

 

Benefit Application:

Benefit determinations are based on the applicable contract language in effect at the time the services were rendered. Exclusions, limitations or exceptions may apply. Benefits may vary based on contract, and individual member benefits must be verified. Wellmark determines medical necessity only if the benefit exists and no contract exclusions are applicable. This medical policy may not apply to FEP. Benefits are determined by the Federal Employee Program.

 

This Medical Policy document describes the status of medical technology at the time the document was developed. Since that time, new technology may have emerged or new medical literature may have been published. This Medical Policy will be reviewed regularly and be updated as scientific and medical literature becomes available.

 

Description:

The selection of individuals with invasive breast cancer who may be candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy is complex and the current tools available for recurrence risk assessment are limited and do not allow for great accuracy in the selection of appropriate individuals who would and would not benefit from treatment with adjuvant chemotherapeutic agents. More precise identification of these individuals could improve outcomes through more appropriate chemotherapy use, mitigation of unnecessary treatment and decreased adverse chemotherapy related events.

 

Laboratory tests have been developed that detect the expression, via messenger RNA (mRNA) or protein, of many different genes in breast tumor tissue and combine the results into a prediction of distant recurrence risk for genotypical women with early stage breast cancer. Test results may help providers and patients decide whether to include adjuvant chemotherapy in postsurgical management./p>

 

Most geno typical women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the United States present with early-stage or locally advanced (i.e. non-metastatic) disease. However, almost a third of geno typical women who are disease free after initial local and regional treatment develop distant recurrences during follow-up. Current breast cancer treatment regimens involve systemic adjuvant chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, biologic therapy, or a combination, depending on patient’s baseline level of recurrence risk, hormonal markers and risk tolerance.

 

An important part of treatment planning for individuals with breast cancer involves determining which patients could benefit from adjuvant treatment. For example, for genotypical women with early stage invasive breast cancer (i.e. cancer extending beyond the basement membrane of the mammary ducts into adjacent tissue), adjuvant chemotherapy provides approximately a 30% relative risk reduction in 10 year breast cancer mortality regardless of prognosis. However, the absolute benefit of chemotherapy depends on the baseline risk of recurrence. Genotypical women with the best prognosis have tumors that are small, early stage, are estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, and lymph node-negative. These genotypical women have an approximately 15% 10 year risk of recurrence with tamoxifen alone; approximately 85% of these patients could avoid the toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy if they could be accurately identified. Conventional risk classifiers (e.g. Adjuvant Online) estimate recurrence risk by considering criteria such as tumor size, type, grade and histologic characteristics; hormone receptor status; and lymph node status.  Consensus guidelines for defining receptor status exist. However, no single classifier is considered a criterion standard, and several common criteria have qualitative or subjective components that add variability to risk estimates. As a result, a substantial number of patients are treated with chemotherapy who fail to benefit. Better predictors of baseline risk could help genotypical women's decision making, some who may prefer to avoid chemotherapy if assured that their risk is low.

 

Decisions to undergo or forgo adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy or endocrine) depend on how a geno typical woman values the potential benefit of lower recurrence risk relative to harms of treatment. The balance and harms determines the thresholds that inform decisions. Most geno typical women will accept substantial adverse effects for even modest benefit.

 

Recently, several manufacturers have identified panels of gene expression markers (signatures) that appear to predict the baseline risk of invasive breast cancer recurrence after surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine therapy (for hormone receptor positive tumors). Several gene expression tests commercially available in the United States are listed in the below table. If these panels are more accurate risk predictors than current conventional classifiers, they could be used to aid decision making on adjuvant treatments without greatly affecting disease free survival and overall survival (OS). This review focuses on gene expression profiling (GEP) panels that have prognostic or predictive ability in individuals with early stage invasive breast cancer with known estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) status. 

 

Gene Expression Tests Reporting Recurrence Risk for Breast Cancer
Test Manufacturer Description
BluePrint Agendia 80 gene expression assay that classifies breast cancer into basal type, luminal type, or HER2 type

This test is marketed as an additional stratifier into a molecular subtype after risk assessment with MammaPrint

Breast Cancer Index bioTheranostics (San Diego, CA) Combines Molecular Grade Index and the HOXB13:IL17BR Index using Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
EndoPredict Myriad (Salt Lake City, UT) 12 gene real time Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
MammaPrint Agendia (Irvine, CA) 70 gene breast cancer recurrence assay that utilizes FFPE (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded) breast tumor tissue
Mammostrat Breast Cancer Test Clarient Diagnostic Services Uses five immunohistochemical markers
Oncotype DX Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA) 21 gene Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
Prosigna NanoString Technologies (Seattle, WA) nCounter digital analysis system based on Prediction analysis of microarray 50 gene set breast cancer intrinsic subtype classifier
TargetPrint Agendia Microarray based gene expression test that offers a quantitative assessment of ER, PR and HER2 overexpression in breast cancer

This test is marketed to be used in conjunction with MammaPrint and BluePrint

MGI: Molecular Grade Index; PAM50: prediction analysis of microarray 50 gene set; RT-PCR: reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.

 

 

Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Test (Genomic Health)

Oncotype DX breast cancer test (21- gene expression profile) is an assay that measures the expression of 21 genes (16 cancer genes and 5 reference genes) in RNA extracted from samples of tissue from a primary breast tumor. The initial indications for the 21-gene expression profile (Oncotype DX) was for patients newly diagnosed with stage I or II disease that is node negative and estrogen receptor (ER) positive, invasive breast cancer who would be treated with tamoxifen. Primary validation studies enrolled node-negative genotypical women. More recently, Genomic Health has expanded their indication to include all stage II disease and IIIa (tumor ≤ 2 cm with spread to axillary lymph nodes or 2-5 cm without lymph node involvement) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). 

 

Invasive breast cancer is defined as having spread beyond the tissue in which it developed and into surrounding normal tissue. It is also called infiltrating breast cancer. Invasive breast cancer is designated as stage I or II (often designated as IA, IB, IIA, or IIB) when the tumor is 5 cm or less in diameter with 3 or fewer positive lymph nodes or greater than 5 cm in diameter with no positive nodes.

 

To date, research studies on Oncotype DX breast have generally tested only one tumor per patient. When Oncotype DX breast testing is planned for two or more tumors from the same patient during the same breast cancer episode, it is important to determine whether the tumors are multifocal (arising from the same primary tumor) or multicentric (distinctly separate tumors). When the tumors appear to be very close in proximity, they can often be assumed to be different parts of the same tumor. A patient that has multiple tumors, a specimen from the tumor with the most aggressive histological characteristics should be submitted for testing. It is not necessary to conduct testing on each tumor, treatment is based on the most aggressive lesion. In most cases, the tumor indicating the highest risk is readily apparent based on size, or can be identified based on grade or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing.

 

Results from the Oncotype DX 21-gene expression profile are combined into a Recurrence Score (RS) which is reported as a number between 0 and 100. A lower score means the cancer has a lower chance of returning, and a higher score means that there is a higher chance of the cancer returning. The score also provides patients and doctors with important information regarding the potential benefit of adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy. A low score indicates that the patient will receive minimal benefit from chemotherapy, whereas a patient with a high score may have significant benefit from chemotherapy.

 

Oncotype DX breast cancer test provides information in addition to standard measurements (such as tumor size, tumor grade and lymph node status) that doctors have traditionally used to estimate how likely a patient’s cancer is to return, and to help make treatment decisions. Each report also includes quantitative, single gene scores for ER, PR and HER2 expression. The report can guide more informed treatment decisions with information to answer critical questions in early stage breast cancer:

  • Quantifies a patient’s 10 year risk of distant recurrence, assuming 5 years of hormonal therapy.
  • Predicts the likelihood of chemotherapy benefit across the range of Recurrence Score results, with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of chemotherapy benefit.
  • Provides an individualized, quantitative risk assessment that reflects the patient’s unique tumor biology, rather than just a high or low binary result.
  • Personalized treatment decision that goes beyond clinical and pathological factors such as age, tumor size and tumor grade.

Based on a study of analytic validity, tissue sampling rather than technical performance of the assay is likely to be the greatest source of variability in results. The 21-gene expression profile was validated in studies using archived tumor samples from subsets of patients enrolled in already completed randomized controlled trials of early breast cancer treatment. Patients enrolled in the trial arms from which specimens were obtained had primary, unilateral breast cancer with no history of prior cancer and were treated with tamoxifen; tumors were ER-positive, most were HER2-negative, and in the case of at least 1 trial multifocal tumors were excluded.

 

The Oncotype DX breast cancer test (21-gene expression profile) is supported by strong evidence of clinical validity, i.e. that the Recurrence Score (RS) is associated with risk of distant recurrence in genotypical women with invasive breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptors, negative for human epidermal grown factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification and without lymph node involvement. Limited but sufficient evidence supports analytic validity and clinical utility in this population. Oncotype DX breast adds additional risk information to conventional clinical classification of individual high risk patients and identifies a subset of patients who would otherwise be recommended for chemotherapy but who are actually at lower risk of recurrence (average risk at 10 years 7%-9%; upper bound of the 95% confidence intervals, 11% to 15%). The available evidence is therefore sufficient to determine that Oncotype DX breast improves the net health outcome for genotypical women with hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative invasive breast cancer. A genotypical woman who prefers to avoid the toxicity and inconvenience of chemotherapy and whose Oncotype DX RS value show that she is at low risk of recurrence might decide to decline chemotherapy.

 

In 2014, a Blue Cross Blue Shield Association TEC assessment addressed gene expression profiling in women with lymph-node negative breast cancer to select adjuvant chemotherapy, specifically use of Oncotype DX, MammoPrint, the Breast Cancer Index, and Prosigna/PAM50 gene expression assay. The assessment concluded that use of Oncotype DX to determine recurrence risk for deciding whether to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy in women with unilateral, hormone receptor-positive, lymph node – negative breast cancer who will receive hormonal therapy meets the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) criteria; and that use of MammaPrint, the Breast Cancer Index, and Prosigna to determine recurrence risk in women with unilateral, hormone receptor – positive, lymph node-negative breast cancer who will receive hormonal therapy does not meet TEC criteria. 

 

In geno typical women who are node-positive, Oncotype DX Breast has also been proposed for use in women with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative disease, node positive breast cancer to guide the addition of combination chemotherapy to standard hormone therapy. A retrospective analysis of a prospective randomized trial suggests that Oncotype DX Breast is predictive in this group similar to its performance in node-negative disease. Although the evidence is not robust regarding the test’s prognostic ability for this population, however, the clinical usefulness has been validated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) as a category 2A level of evidence and the recommendation is a uniform consensus that the intervention is appropriate to consider this testing in patients with 1-3 involved ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes.

 

Patients with DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)

DCIS is breast cancer located in the lining of the mammary ducts that has not yet invaded nearby tissues. It may progress to invasive cancer if untreated. The incidence of DCIS diagnosis in the United States has increased in tandem with the widespread use of screening mammography, account for about 20% of all newly diagnosed invasive plus noninvasive breast tumors. Recommended treatment is lumpectomy (mastectomy is also an option) with or without radiation treatment; postsurgical tamoxifen treatment is recommended for ER-positive DCIS, especially if excision alone is used. Because the overall rate of ipsilateral tumor recurrence (DCIS or invasive carcinoma) is approximately 25% at 10 years, it is believed many genotypical women are over-treated with radiotherapy. Thus, accurate prediction of recurrence risk may identify those women who may safely avoid radiation.

 

The Oncotype DX DCIS test uses information from 12 (7 cancer related and 5 reference genes) of the 21 genes assayed in the standard Oncotype DX breast test (21-gene expression profile) for early breast cancer to predict 10 year risk of local recurrence (DCIS or invasive carcinoma). The stated purpose is help guide treatment decision making in genotypical women with DCIS treated by local excision, with or without adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

 

The DCIS Score is obtained by performing the Oncotype DX breast cancer assay, using a distinct DCIS algorithm and coefficients that was pre-specified because of its ability to predict recurrence in patients with DCIS regardless of whether adjuvant tamoxifen therapy was given.

 

Development of the DCIS Score algorithm was based on published results for the Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Assay showing similarity in the expression profiles of the Recurrence Score genes between DCIS and invasive breast cancer (IBC) when both are present within the same patient tumor. The DCIS Score algorithm was developed based on published data obtained from Kaiser Permanente and NSABP B-14 studies in which the proliferation gene group, PR and GSTM1 were found to predict distant recurrence regardless of whether adjuvant tamoxifen therapy was given. This DCIS score was subsequently validated as a predictor of local recurrent in patients from ECOG E5194 study.

 

For individuals who have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), considering radiotherapy who receive gene expression profiling with the Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score test, the evidence includes prospective-retrospective studies and prospective trials. Although studies have shown that the test stratifies patients into high and low risk groups, they have not yet demonstrated with sufficient precision that the risk of disease recurrence in patients identified with an Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score is low enough to consider changing the management of DCIS. The evidence is insufficient
to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes.Therefore, Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score test for predicting recurrence risk in patients with noninvasive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to inform treatment planning after excisional surgery is considered investigational.

 

Gene Expression Profiling in Genotypical Men with Breast Cancer

Oncotype DX breast cancer testing has been studied and validated based on samples from genotypical women with breast cancer. Breast cancer is rare in genotypical men, which makes it difficult to conduct adequate trials in genotypical males, so experts have traditionally agreed that interventions based on research with genotypical women can also be applied to genotypical men. However, recent studies have demonstrated important differences in the biology of breast cancer between genotypical males and genotypical females. Therefore, it can no longer be presumed that the results of research in genotypical women with breast cancer can be applied to genotypical men.

 

Based on review of the peer reviewed medical literature, no published literature on the use of gene expression profiling in genotypical men with breast cancer has been identified. Therefore, the use of gene expression profiling i.e. Oncotype DX breast testing (21-gene expression profile) is considered investigational because the safety and effectiveness of this service cannot be established.

 

Additional Applications

Based on study published in May 2008 that compared Oncotype DX ER and PR results with traditional IHC results, Genomic Health is now including quantitative ER and PR component results in Oncotype DX breast cancer test (21-gene profile) reports. The study reported 90% or better concordance between the 2 assays, but quantitative ER by Oncotype Dx was more strongly associated with disease recurrence than IHC results. However, ER and PR analysis is traditionally conducted during pathology examination of all breast cancer biopsies, whereas Oncotype DX breast is indicated after the pathology examination is complete, the patient meets specific criteria, and patient and physician are considering preferences for risk and chemotherapy. Thus, Oncotype DX breast cancer test (21-gene profile) should not be ordered as a substitute for ER and PR IHC. Additionally, accepted guidelines for ER and PR testing outline standards for high-quality IHC testing and do not recommend confirmatory testing; thus the 21-gene RS (Oncotype DX breast) should not be ordered to confirm ER/PR IHC results. 

 

EndoPredict

In early stage, estrogen receptor (ER) positive, HER-2 negative breast cancer, the decision to administer chemotherapy is largely based on prognostic criteria since large sub-set of women do not derive benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to endocrine therapy. EndoPredict combines a breast tumor 12 gene expression signature with clinical features of the tumor (tumor size and nodal status) to predict the 10 year distant recurrence rate. This information may be used by the treating physician to guide therapy decisions by identifying which patients are sufficiently low risk of recurrence so that they can safely forgo chemotherapy.

 

The EndoPredict gene signature was developed in a training cohort of 964 hormone receptor-positive and HER-2 negative tumor samples. Eight genes (BIRC5, UBE2C, DHCR7, RBBP8, IL6ST, ASGP1, MGP and STC2) were selected as relevant for therapeutic decision making; they include proliferation-associated genes as well as estrogen receptor signaling-associated genes. The signature also included three RNA normalization genes (CALM2, OAZ1 and RPL37A) and  one DNA reference gene (HBB).  The EndoPredict (EP) score is calculated using a mathematical formula that combines the activity levels of 12 genes. The EP score is then combined with tumor size and lymph node status to produce the EPclin score. EndoPredict is uniquely distinguished from other breast cancer gene expression tests because it has been validated with the incorporation of these well-established prognostic factors of tumor size and lymph node status. Patients with an EPclin score of 3.3 or less are classified as low risk of distant recurrence and those with a score greater than 3.3 are classified as high risk. For patients in the low risk group, the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy is unlikely to outweigh the risks. There is sufficient discrimination of the two risk groups so that there is no intermediate risk group.   

 

Summary

The reliance on a molecular prognostic tool for women with early, ER positive, HER2-negative breast cancer is well-established, as this group has high survival rates; yet is heterogenous, with not all women receiving the same benefit from chemotherapy. EndoPredict combines a 12-gene expression signature with tumor size and nodal status to identify certain breast cancer patient with sufficiently low risk of distant recurrence that they can safely forgo chemotherapy. The evidence includes 3 prospective-retrospective studies and observational studies. The studies showed that a low score was associated with a low absolute risk of 10 year distant recurrence. Over half of patients in the studies were classified at low risk. Additionally, EndoPredict has been incorporated into clinical guidelines for optimal therapeutic decision-making. The evidence is sufficient to determine that this testing results in a meaningful improvement in net health outcome.

 

Breast Cancer Index

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) Risk of Recurrence is intended for use in patients diagnosed with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), lymph node negative early stage invasive breast cancer. BCI provides the individualized risk of late distant recurrence of breast cancer years 5-10. Breast Cancer Index is a quantitative molecular assessment of estrogen signaling pathways HoxB13/IL17BR with a five gene molecular grade index (MGI) (BUB1B, CENPA, NEK2, RACGAP1, RRM2, H/I).  This information may be used by the treating physician to guide therapy decisions by identifying which patients are sufficiently low risk of recurrence so that they can safely forgo chemotherapy. A numerical result is reported on a continuous curve delineated by high/low risk categories.

 

Summary

For individuals who have early stage node negative invasive breast cancer considering adjuvant chemotherapy who receive gene expression profiling with the Breast Cancer Index (BCI), the evidence includes findings from 2 prospective-retrospective studies and 1 registry-based observational study. The findings from the 2 prospective-retrospective studies showed that a low risk BCI score is associated with low 10 year distant recurrence rates. The findings from the registry based observational study also showed low 10 year distant recurrence rates. Additionally, Breast Cancer Index (BCI) has been incorporated into clinical guidelines for optimal therapeutic decision-making. The evidence is sufficient to determine that this testing results in a meaningful improvement in net health outcome.
  

Prosigna

The Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay is based on PAM50, the 50-gene classifier algorithm that is performed on the NanoString nCounter DX Analysis System using RNA extracted FFPE (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded) breast tumor tissue previously diagnosed as invasive breast carcinoma. The algorithm uses a 50-gene expression profile to assign breast cancer to one of four PAM50 molecular subtypes determined by the tumors molecular profile. This qualitative assay utilizes gene expression data, weighted together with clinical variables to generate a numerical value on a 0 to 100 scale that correlates with the probability of distant recurrence within 10 years. This information may be used by the treating physician to guide therapy decisions by identifying which patients are sufficiently low risk of recurrence so that they can safely forgo chemotherapy. The Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay is indicated in genotypical women with hormone receptor positive and lymph node negative invasive breast cancer. 

 

Summary

For individuals who have early stage node negative invasive breast cancer considering adjuvant chemotherapy who receive gene expression profiling with Prosigna, the evidence includes 2 prospective-retrospective studies evaluating the prognostic ability of Prosigna. Both studies showed a low absolute risk of distant recurrence in patients with low risk scores. Additionally,  Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay (PAM50) has been incorporated into clinical guidelines for optimal therapeutic decision-making. The evidence is sufficient to determine that this testing results in a meaningful improvement in net health outcome.
 

MammaPrint 

MammaPrint is a 70 gene breast cancer recurrence assay that utilizes FFPE (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded) breast tumor tissue to analyze and predict whether existing cancer has the ability to metastasize. Breast cancer recurrence and/or metastasis is partly dependent on the activation and suppression of certain genes located within the primary breast tumor. MammaPrint is indicated for breast cancer patients that fulfill the following criteria:

 

  • Breast cancer stage I or II
  • Invasive carcinoma (infiltrating carcinoma)
  • Tumor size ≤ 5.0 cm
  • Lymph node negative
  • Estrogen receptor positive (ER+) or Estrogen receptor negative (ER-)
  • HER2 negative or positive
  • Women of all ages

This information may be used by the treating physician to guide therapy decisions by identifying which patients are sufficiently low risk of recurrence so that they can safely forgo chemotherapy. MammaPrint provides a numerical index with a range of -1 to +1, that is overlayed with a binary low risk/high risk clinical classification system.

 

Low Risk Results

  • 10% chance of cancer recurrence within 10 years without any additional adjuvant treatment, either hormonal therapy or chemotherapy

High Risk Results

  • 29% chance of cancer recurrence within 10 years without any additional adjuvant treatment, either hormonal therapy or chemotherapy
Summary

For individuals who have early stage breast cancer considering adjuvant chemotherapy who receive gene expression profiling with the 70-gene signature MammaPrint, the evidence includes 1 study with outcomes in node-negative patients.  Although the study showed a low risk of 10 year distant recurrence, it did not derive from high quality data sources.  A recently reported study of clinical utility only reported 5 year results and may not identify a group with sufficiently low risk. NCCN guidelines state “other prognostic multigene assays have not been validated to predict response to chemotherapy,” this statement would include the MammaPrint (70 gene signature) assay. Further studies are needed in regards to clinical utility and clinical validity regarding the use of MammaPrint assay for individuals who have early stage breast cancer considering adjuvant chemotherapy. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes.

 

Mammostrat

Patients with early stage breast cancer, treated with endocrine therapy, have approximately 90% 5 year disease free survival. However, some postmenopausal patients with hormone sensitive early breast cancer remain at high risk of relapse despite endocrine therapy and, in addition, might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. The challenge is to prospectively identify such patients. The Mammostrat test uses five immunohistochemical markers (SLC7A5, HTF9C, P53, NDRG1 and CEACAM5) to stratify patients regarding recurrence risk and may inform treatment decisions. The Mammostrat test measures the levels of the five immunohistochemical markers into a risk index score and the individual is assigned to a risk category high, moderate or low.

 

Summary

The existing studies include a single validation study and randomized clinical trials. In 2012, Bartlett and others published the results of a study evaluating the efficacy of Mammostrat in a multinational randomized open label phase III trial (TEAM trial) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive early breast cancer testing the efficacy of 5 years of exemestane (25 mg once per day) versus tamoxifen (20 mg once per day for 2.5 to 3 years) followed by exemestane (for another 2.5 to 2 years). The authors tested 4598 pathology blocks from TEAM participants, who were node positive in 47% of subjects and in whom 36% were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, and reported on 3837 that were successfully scored.  In the 1226 (31.9%) subjects that were both node negative and did not receive chemotherapy, the Mammostrat test was a significant prognostic factor for distant relapse-free survival (p=0.004).  Subjects with moderate or high scores were reported to be 58% and 159% more likely to experience distant relapse that those with low Mammostrat scores.  Similarly, Mammostrat results were an independent factor in multivariate analysis for disease-free survival in these populations (p=0.038).  In the sample of subjects treated without chemotherapy (n=2559), multivariate analysis found that Mammostrat score remained an independent predictor of distant relapse-free survival risk (p<0.001), with a 45% and 75% increase in recurrence risk for medium and high-risk scores, respectively, compared with subjects with low-risk scores.  However, for disease-free survival, no significant benefit from Mammostrat was seen (p=0.085).  When a multivariate analysis was conducted in the total study population, analyses adjusted for conventional prognostic factors (i.e., nodal status, grade, size, age, treatment, HER2, and quantitative PR and ER), the Mammostrat score remained an independent predictor of distant relapse-free survival risk (P for trend <0.001) with a 50% and 91% increase in risk of recurrence for medium and high-risk scores, respectively compared with subjects with low-risk scores.  In a similar analysis for disease-free survival, significant additional prognostic value of the Mammostrat score alongside conventional markers was found (P for trend <0.001).  The results from this trial are promising, but this is only an initial report of the use of the Mammostrat test.  Further studies seeking evidence addressing the clinical utility of this test are warranted. Additionally, per the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines (see below) Mammostrat is not recommended to guide decisions in adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes.

 

BluePrint and TargetPrint

Gene expression patterns have led to the identification of molecular subtypes of breast cancer, which have different prognoses and responses to treatment regimens. These molecular subtypes are largely distinguished by differential expression of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in the tumor, and are classified as luminal basal, or HER2 type. Luminal type breast cancers are ER-positive; basal type breast cancers correlate best with ER-, PR- and HER2- negative (triple negative) tumors, and HER2 type, with high expression of HER2.

 

At present, methodology for molecular subtyping is not standardized, and breast cancer subtyping is routinely assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).

 

BluePrint is an 80 gene expression assay that classifies breast cancer into basal type, luminal type, or HER2 type. The test is marketed as an additional stratifier into a molecular subtype after risk assessment with MammaPrint. This assists the physician in determining a patient’s individual risk for metastasis and/or recurrence and which patients can safely forego chemotherapy.

 

TargetPrint is a microarray based gene expression test that offers a quantitative assessment of ER, PR and HER2 overexpression in breast cancer. The test is marketed to be used in conjunction with MammaPrint and BluePrint. This assists the physician in determining a patient’s individual risk for metastasis and/or recurrence and which patients can safely forego chemotherapy.       

 

Summary

The 80-gene expression assay BluePrint discriminates among three breast cancer molecular subtypes, and TargetPrint is a method to measure ER, PR, and HER2 as an alternative to immunohistochemistry and FISH. Clinical utility of BluePrint is unknown, as it is unclear how this test will add to treatment decision making using currently available, accepted methods (e.g. clinical and pathologic parameters). The incremental benefit of using TargetPrint as an alternative to current standard methods of measuring ER, PR and HER2 has not been demonstrated, nor is it included in recommendations for testing issued by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes.

  

 

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements 

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

In 2017, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) issued an update on the use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer which included the following recommendation:

 

Oncotype DX
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2 negative (node-negative) breast cancer, the clinician may use the 21-gene recurrence score (RS; Oncotype DX; Genomic Health) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: high
    • Strength of recommendation: strong
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2 negative (node-positive) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the 21 gene RS (Oncotype DX; Genomic Health) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. 
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: intermediate
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has HER2-positive breast cancer or triple negative (TN) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the 21-gene RS (Oncotype DX; Genomic Health) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong

 

EndoPredict
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative (node negative) breast cancer, the clinician may use the 12-gene risk score (EndoPredict) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: intermediate
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative (node positive) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the 12-gene risk score (EndoPredict) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has HER-2 positive breast cancer or triple negative (TN) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the 12-gene risk score (EndoPredict) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong

 

MammaPrint
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER-2 negative node-negative breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in those with high clinical risk per MINDACT categorization to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy due to its ability to identify a good-prognosis population with potentially limited chemotherapy benefit.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: high
    • Strength of recommendation: strong
  •  If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative, node negative, breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay should not be used in those with low clinical risk per MINDACT categorization to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, because women in low clinical risk category had excellent outcomes and did not appear to benefit from chemotherapy even with  genomic high-risk cancer.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: high
    • Strength of recommendation: strong
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative, node-postive, breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in patients with one to three positive nodes and at high clinical risk per MINDACT categorization to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy due to its ability to identify a good-prognosis population with potentially limited chemotherapy benefit. However, such patients should be informed that a benefit of chemotherapy cannot be excluded, particularly in patients with greater than one involved lymph node. 
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: high
    • Strength of recommendation: strong
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative, node positive, breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay should not be used in patients with one to three positive nodes and at low clinical risk per MINDACT categorization to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. There are insufficient data on the clinical utility of MammaPrint in this specific patient population. 
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: high
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If patient has HER-2 positive breast cancer, the clinician should not use the MammaPrint assay to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.  Additional studies are required to address the role of MammaPrint in patients with this tumor subtype who are also receiving HER-2 targeted therapy. 
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: low
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has ER-PgR negative and HER2-negative breast cancer, triple negative (TN), the clinician should not use the MammaPrint assay to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong

Note: MINDACT categorization is based on age, tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node status, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and clinical pathologic subtype).

 

Prosigna (PAM50) Risk of Recurrence Score
  • If a patient has ER/PgR-positive, HER-2 negative (node negative) breast cancer, the clinician may use the PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) score (Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay), in conjunction with other clinicopathologic variables, to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: high
    • Strength of recommendation: strong
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER-2 negative (node positive) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the PAM50-ROR score (Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: intermediate
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has HER-2 positive breast cancer, the clinician should not use the PAM50-ROR score (Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong
  • If a patient has triple negative (TN) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the PAM50-ROR score (Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong

 

Breast Cancer Index
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative, node negative breast cancer, the clinician may use the Breast Cancer Index to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: evidence based
      Evidence quality: intermediate
      Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative, node positive breast cancer, the clinician should not use the Breast Cancer Index to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong
  • If a patient has HER2-positive breast cancer or triple negative (TN) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the Breast Cancer Index to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy. 
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong

 

Mammostrat
  • If a patient has ER/PgR-positive, HER2-negative (node-positive or node negative) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the five-protein assay Mammostrat to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: intermediate
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has HER-2 positive breast cancer or triple negative (TN) breast cancer, the clinician should not use the five protein assay Mammostrat to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong

 

Immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC-4)
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative (node positive or node negative) breast cancer, the clinician should not use immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC-4) to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: intermediate
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate
  • If a patient has HER2-positive breast cancer or triple negative (TN) breast cancer, the clinician should not use IHC-4 to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy.
    • Type: informal consensus
    • Evidence quality: insufficient
    • Strength of recommendation: strong

Extended Endocrine Therapy
  • If a patient has ER/PgR positive, HER2-negative (node negative) breast cancer and has had 5 years of endocrine therapy without evidence of recurrence, the clinician should not use multi-parameter gene expression or protein assays (Oncotype DX, EndoPredict, PAM50 (Prosigna  Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay), Breast Cancer Index, or IHC4) to guide decisions on extended endocrine therapy.
    • Type: evidence based
    • Evidence quality: intermediate
    • Strength of recommendation: moderate

 

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)

Breast Cancer Version 2.2017, Invasive Breast Cancer
Estimating risk of relapse or death and benefits of systemic treatment

The 21 gene assay using transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on RNA isolated from paraffin embedded breast cancer tissue is among the best-validated prognostic assays, and there are data showing that it can predict who is most likely to respond to systemic chemotherapy.

 

Studies have shown that the 21 gene assay recurrence score obtained is predictive of locoregional and distant recurrence for postmenopausal women treated with tamoxifen or those treated with aromatase inhibitor. Studies have also demonstrated the ability of the recurrence score to independently predict response to adjuvant chemotherapy.

 

Many other multi-gene or multi-gene expression assay systems have been developed.

 

The 70 gene signature assay uses microarray technology to analyze gene expression profile from breast tumor tissue (formalin fixed, paraffin embedded fresh or frozen breast tumor tissue) to help identify patients with early stage breast cancer likely to develop distant metastases. This assay is approved by the FDA to assist in assignment of women with ER positive or ER negative breast cancer into a high versus low risk for recurrence, but not for predicting benefit for adjuvant systemic therapy.

 

Another assay with 50 genes identifies intrinsic breast cancer subtypes (luminal A, luminal B, HER2 enriched and basal-like) in addition to generating a risk of recurrence (ROR) score that can be used to predict prognosis among postmenopausal women with hormone-positive breast cancer.

 

The NCCN Panel members acknowledge that many assays have been clinically validated for prediction of prognosis. However, based on the currently available data, the panel believes that the 21 gene assay has been best validated for its uses as prognostic test as well as in predicting who is most likely to respond to systemic chemotherapy.

 

Patients with high recurrence score obtained using the 21 gene assay clearly benefit from chemotherapy, whereas patients with low score do not appear to benefit from the addition of chemotherapy regardless of the number of positive lymph nodes.  The results from the prospective TAILORx study support the use of the 21-gene assay to spare the use of chemotherapy in patients with low risk score.

Axillary Lymph Node Negative Tumors

Small tumors (up to 0.5 cm in greatest diameter) that do not involve the lymph nodes are so favorable that adjuvant systemic therapy is a minimal incremental benefit and is not recommended as treatment of invasive cancer. According to the NCCN Panel, endocrine therapy may be considered to reduce the risk for a second contralateral breast cancer, especially in those with ER positive disease.

 

Patients with invasive doctor or lobular tumors greater than 0.5 cm in diameter and no lymph node involvement may be divided into patients with a low risk of recurrence and those with unfavorable prognostic features that warrant consideration of adjuvant therapy. Unfavorable prognostic features include intramammary angiolymphativ invasion, high nuclear grade, high hisotologic grade, HER2 positive status or hormone receptor negative status. The use of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy in these relatively low risk subsets of women must be based on balancing the expected absolute risk reduction and the individual patient’s willingness to experience toxicity to achieve that incremental risk reduction.

 

For women with lymph node negative, hormone receptor negative tumors less than or equal to 0.5 cm with micrometastasis (pN1mi) or tumors 0.6 to 1.0 cm, the NCCN guidelines suggest considering adjuvant chemotherapy (category 2A). For tumors greater than 1 cm in diameter chemotherapy is a category 1 recommendation.

 

For those with lymph node negative hormone receptor positive breast cancer tumors greater than 0.5 cm, the panel recommends endocrine therapy (category 1) with the consideration of chemotherapy. Incremental benefit of combination chemotherapy in patients with lymph node negative, hormone receptor positive breast cancer may be relatively small. However, chemotherapy should not be withheld from these patients solely based on ER positive tumor status. The panel considers the 21 gene RT-PCR assay an option for these patients to help estimate the likelihood of recurrence and benefit from chemotherapy. The panel emphasizes that the recurrence score should be used for decision making only in the context of other elements of risk stratification for an individual patient.

Axillary Lymph Node Positive Tumors

Patients with lymph node positive disease are most often candidates for chemotherapy and, if the tumor is hormone receptor positive, for the addition of endocrine therapy (category 1). When HER2 is amplified for over-expressed, HER2 targeted therapy should be incorporated into the adjuvant chemotherapy. The NCCN Panel has noted in a footnote that the 21 gene RT PCR assay recurrence score can be considered in select patients with 1 to 3 involved ipsilateral ALNs to guide the addition of combination chemotherapy to standard hormone therapy based on the retrospective study at Albain et. al.

 

Guideline for Systemic Adjuvant Treatment – Hormone Receptor Positive – HER2 Negative Disease

Footnotes

  • The 21 gene RT-PCR assay recurrence score can be considered in select patients with 1-3 involved ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes to guide the addition of combination chemotherapy to standard hormone therapy. A retrospective analysis of a prospective randomized trial suggests that the test is predictive in this group similar to its performance in node negative disease.
  • Other prognostic multigene assays may be considered to help assess risk of recurrence but not have been validated to predict response to chemotherapy.

 

Prior Approval:


Not applicable

 

Policy:

Medically Necessary

The use of OncoType DX™ breast test (21-gene expression profile) to predict recurrence risk for deciding whether or not to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy may be considered medically necessary in genotypical women with primary breast cancer meeting ALL of the following criteria:

  • Unilateral tumor
  • Node-negative (lymph nodes with micrometastases not greater than 2 mm are considered negative for purposes of this policy statement) OR with 1-3 involved ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes
  • Hormone-receptor-positive (estrogen-receptor positive (ER-positive) or progesterone-receptor positive (PR-positive))
  • Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative
  • Tumor size 0.6 to 1.0 cm with moderate/poor differentiation or unfavorable features, OR tumor size > 1 cm
  • who will be treated with  adjuvant endocrine therapy, e.g., tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors
  • when the test result will aid the patient in making the decision regarding adjuvant chemotherapy (i.e., when chemotherapy is a therapeutic option) AND
  • when ordered within six months following diagnosis, since the value of the test for making decisionsgarding delayed chemotherapy is unknown

For patients who otherwise meet the above criteria but who have multiple ipsilateral primary tumors, use of Oncotype DX™ breast test (21-gene expression profile) may be considered medically necessary for the tumor with the most aggressive histologic characteristics.  It is not necessary to conduct testing on each tumor, treatment is based on the most aggressive lesion.

 

The OncoType DX™ breast test (21-gene expression profile) should only be ordered on a tissue specimen obtained during surgical removal of the tumor and after subsequent pathology examination of the tumor has been completed and determined to meet the above criteria (i.e. the test should not be ordered on a preliminary core biopsy). The test should be ordered in the context of a physician-patient discussion regarding risk preferences when the test result will aid in making decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy.

 

The use of OncoType DX™ breast test (21-gene expression profile) if ordered as a substitute for standard estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing would be considered not medically necessary

 

ER and PR analysis is traditionally conducted during pathology examination of all breast cancer biopsies, whereas Oncotype DX breast is indicated after the pathology examination is complete, the patient meets specific criteria, and patient and physician are considering preferences for risk and chemotherapy. Thus, Oncotype DX breast cancer test (21-gene profile) should not be ordered as a substitute for ER and PR IHC. Additionally, accepted guidelines for ER and PR testing outline standards for high-quality IHC testing and do not recommend confirmatory testing; thus the 21-gene RS (Oncotype DX breast) should not be ordered to confirm ER/PR IHC results and would be considered not medically necessary

 

EndoPredict, Breast Cancer Index or Prosigna Assays

The use of EndoPredict, the Breast Cancer Index, or Prosigna assays to determine recurrence risk for deciding whether to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy therapy may be considered medically necessary in genotypical women with primary breast cancer meeting ALL of the following criteria:

  • Unilateral tumor

  • Node-negative (lymph nodes with micrometastases not greater than 2 mm are considered  negative for purposes of this policy statement)

  • Hormone-receptor-positive (estrogen-receptor positive (ER-positive) or progesterone-receptor positive (PR-positive))

  • Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative

  • Tumor size 0.6 to 1.0 cm with moderate/poor differentiation or unfavorable features, OR tumor size > 1 cm

  • who will be treated with  adjuvant endocrine therapy, e.g., tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors

  • when the test result will aid the patient in making the decision regarding adjuvant chemotherapy (i.e., when chemotherapy is a therapeutic option) AND

  • when ordered within six months following diagnosis, since the value of the test for making decisions regarding delayed chemotherapy is unknown

For patients who otherwise meet the above criteria but who have multiple ipsilateral primary tumors, use of EndoPredict, Breast Cancer Index or Prosigna assays may be considered medically necessary for the tumor with the most aggressive histologic characteristics. It is not necessary to conduct testing on each tumor, treatment is based on the most aggressive lesion.

 

The EndoPredict, Breast Cancer Index or Prosigna assays should only be ordered on a tissue specimen obtained during surgical removal of the tumor and after subsequent pathology examination of the tumor has been completed and determined to meet the above criteria (i.e. the test should not be ordered on a preliminary core biopsy). The test should be ordered in the context of a physician-patient discussion regarding risk preferences when the test result will aid in making decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy.

 

Investigational

  • All other indications for OncoType DX™ breast test (21-gene expression profile), including but not limited to the following are considered investigational, because the safety and/or effectiveness cannot be established by review of the available published peer reviewed medical literature:  
    • Patients with bilateral disease; or
    • To consider length of treatment with tamoxifen
  • All other indications for EndoPredict, the Breast Cancer Index, or Prosigna assays, including but not limited to the following are considered investigational, because the safety and or effectiveness cannot be established by review of the available published peer reviewed medical literature:
    • Determination of recurrence risk in breast cancer patients with positive lymph nodes
    • Patients with bilateral disease; or
    • To consider length of treatment with tamoxifen
  • Use of gene expression assays in genotypical men with breast cancer including but not limited to OncoType DX™ breast test (21-gene expression profile), EndoPredict, the Breast Cancer Index, orProsigna assays is considered investigational.

    Based on the peer reviewed medical literature no published literature on the use of gene expression profiling in men with breast cancer has been identified. The safety and effectiveness of this service cannot be established. 

  • Use of subsets of genes from the 21 gene expression profile for predicting recurrence risk in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) i.e. Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score to inform treatment planning after excisional surgery is considered investigational.

    For individuals who have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), considering radiotherapy who receive gene expression profiling with the Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score test, the evidence includes prospective-retrospective studies and prospective trials. Although studies have shown that the test stratifies patients into high and low risk groups, they have not yet demonstrated with sufficient precision that the risk of disease recurrence in patients identified with an Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score is low enough to consider changing the management of DCIS. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of this testing on net health outcomes. Therefore, Oncotype DX Breast DCIS test for predicting recurrence risk in patients with noninvasive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to inform treatment planning after excisional surgery is considered investigational.

  • All other gene expression assays for predicting recurrence risk for any indication are considered investigational including but not limited to the following:

    • MammaPrint
    • Mammostrat

    Based on the peer reviewed medical literature the evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion concerning net health outcomes and further studies seeking evidence addressing clinical utility and clinical validity of these tests are warranted.    

  • The use of gene expression assays for quantitative assessment of ER, PR and HER2 overexpression (e.g. TargetPrint) is considered investigational.

  • The use of gene expression assays to molecularly subclassify breast cancer (e.g. BluePrint) is considered investigational
  • Based on the peer reviewed medical literature the evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion concerning net health outcomes. Further studies seeking evidence addressing clinical utility of these tests are warranted. Additionally society guidelinesdo not include or indicate the use of these tests to guide decisions regarding adjuvant therapy.

 

Definitions

Adjuvant Chemotherapy: Adjuvant means additional. Adjuvant chemotherapy is given to patients after primary treatment (e.g. chemotherapy and radiation, or chemotherapy and surgery), when the doctor thinks there is a high risk the cancer will return. Adjuvant chemotherapy aims to destroy hidden cancer cells that remain but are undetectable.  

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Is the administration of chemotherapeutic agents before surgery or radiation therapy. The reduction in the size of larger tumors, or to prevent metastatic cancer from spreading is the goal of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Ipsilateral: On the same side.

 

Procedure Codes and Billing Guidelines:

To report provider services, use appropriate CPT* codes, Alpha Numeric (HCPCS level 2) codes, Revenue codes and / or diagnosis codes.

  • 81519  Oncology (breast), mRNA, gene expression profiling by real-time RT-PCR of 21 genes, utilizing formalin fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, algorithm reported as recurrence score
  • 81520  Oncology (breast), mRNA gene expression profiling by hybrid capture of 58 genes (50 content and 8 housekeeping), utilizing formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, algorithm reported as a recurrence risk score
  • 81521  Oncology (breast), mRNA, microarray gene expression profiling of 70 content genes and 465 housekeeping genes, utilizing fresh frozen or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, algorithm reported as index related to risk of distant metastasis
  • 81479 Unlisted molecular pathology procedure (may be used to represent Mammostrat, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), BluePrint, TargetPrint)    
  • 81599 Unlisted multianalyte assay with algorithmic analysis (may be used to represent EndoPridict, Mammostrat, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), BluePrint, TargetPrint)     
  • 84999 Unlisted chemistry procedure (may be used to represent Mammostrat, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), BluePrint, TargetPrint)      
  • 0008M Oncology (breast), mRNA analysis of 58 genes using hybrid capture, on formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue, prognostic algorithm reported as a risk score (Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay)
  • 0045U  Oncology (breast ductal carcinoma in situ), mRNA, gene expression profiling by real-time RT-PCR of 12 genes (7 content and 5 housekeeping), utilizing formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, algorithm reported as recurrence score
  • S3854 Gene expression profiling panel for use in the management of breast cancer treatment (may be used to represent MammoPrint, Mammostrat, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), BluePrint, TargetPrint)

 

Selected References:

  • Esteva FJ, Sahin AA, Cristofanilli M et al. Prognostic role of a multigene reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in patients with Node-negative breast cancer not receiving adjuvant systemic therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11(9):3315-3319.
  • 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):2817-2826.
  • Wang Y, Klijn JGM, Zhang Y et al. Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet 2005; 365:671-79.
  • Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K et al. Gene expression profiles of paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22 (14 Suppl):501 [Abstract].
  • Hannemann J, Oosterkanp HM, Bosch CA et al. Changes in gene expression profiling due to primary chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(14 Suppl):502 [Abstract].
  • 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(25):1999-2009.
  • Habel LA, Quesenberry CP, Jacobs M et al. Gene expression and breast cancer mortality in Northern California Kaiser Permanente patients; a large population-based case control study. Proceedings from the 41st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. May 13-17, 2005. Orlando, FL. Abstract #603.
  • ECRI. Oncotype DX™ Assay to Predict Recurrence in Breast Cancer. Plymouth Meeting (PA): ECRI Health Technology Information Service; 2005. (ECRI Hotline Response).
  • Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. Gene Expression Profiling for Managing Breast Cancer Treatment. Assessment Program 2005; 20(3).
  • Hayes Inc. Gene Expression Profiling of Tumor Tissue to Predict Breast Cancer Recurrence. Hayes Alert. September 2005; VIII(9).
  • 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 Aug 10;24(23):3717-8.
  • TARGET [database online]. Plymouth Meeting (PA): ECRI; 2006 Aug. Gene expression assay for predicting recurrence of breast cancer.
  • Goldhirsch A, Wood W, Gelber R et al. Progress and promise: highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007. Ann Oncol 2007;18(7):1133-44.
  • Mina L, Soule SE, Badve S et al. Predicting response to primary chemotherapy: gene expression profiling of paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue. Breast Caner Res treat 2007;103(2):197-208.
  • Glas AM, Floore A, Delahaye LJ et al. Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics 2006; 7:278.
  • Reid JF, Lusa L, De Cecco L et al. Limits of predictive models using microarray data for breast cancer clinical treatment outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(12):927-30.
  • Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 Update of recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33). Published ahead of print on October 22, 2007 as 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2364.
  • Emerging Technology (TARGET) Evidence Report. Plymouth Meeting (PA): ECRI Institute; January 2008. Gene expression profiling of breast cancer to predict the likelihood of recurrence.
  • Ma X-J, Salunga R, Dahiya S et al. A Five-Gene Molecular Grade Index and HOXB13:IL17BR Are Complementary Prognostic Factors in Early Stage Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14(9):2601-2608.
  • Jerevall PL, Brommesson S, Strand C et al. Exploring the two-gene ration in breast cancer-independent roles for HOXB13 and IL17BR in prediction of clinical outcome.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Jan;107(2):225-34. E-pub 2007 Apr 24.
  • Jansen MP, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP et al. HOXB13-to-IL17BR expression ratio is related with tumor aggressiveness and response to tamoxifen of recurrent breast cancer: a retrospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 20;25(6):662-8.
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines on Oncology: Breast Cancer. v.1.2010 Last accessed February 2010.
  • Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R et al. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 117(3):483-95.
  • Mook S, Schmidt MK, Viale G et al. The 70-gene prognosis-signature predicts disease outcome in breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes in an independent validation study. Breast Cancer res treat 2009; 116(2):295-302.
  • Ross DT, Kim CY, tang G et al. Chemosensitivity and stratification by a five monoclonal antibody immunohistochemistry test in the NSABP B14 and B20 trials. Clin Cancer res 2008; 14(20):6602-9.
  • 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 anastrazole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(11):1829-34.
  • 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.
  • Mamounas EP, Tang G, Fisher B et al. Association between the 21-gene recurrence score assay and risk of locoregional recurrence in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B14 and NSABP B-20. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(10):1677-83.
  • Lo SS, Mumby PB, Norton J et al. Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(10):1671-6.
  • 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.
  • Sparano JA, SOlin LJ. Defining the clinical utility of gene expression assays in breast cancer: the intersection of science and art in clinical decision-making. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(10):1625-7.
  • Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lanet Oncol 2010; 11(1):55-65.
  • Oratz R, Kim B, Chao C et al. Physician survey of the effect of the 21-gene recurrence score assay results on treatment recommendations for patients with lymph node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Journal of Oncology Practice 2011; 7(2):94-9.
  • Mook S, Knauer M, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM et al. Metastatic potential of T1 breast cancer can be predicted by the 70-gene MammaPrint signature. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17(5):1406-13.
  • Kunz G. Use of genomic test (MammaPrint) in daily clinical practice to assist in risk stratification of young breast cancer patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 283(3):597-602.
  • Bighin C, Del Mastro L, Canavese G et al. Use in current clinical practice of 70-gene signature in early breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2010; 21(4):717-22.
  • Mook S, Schmidt MK, Weigelt B et al. The 70-gene prognosis signature versus St. Gallen guideliens and Adjuvant! Online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(8):1382-91.
  • Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16(21):5222-32.
  • California Technology Assessment Forum® The 70-Gene Signature (MammaPrint) as a Guide for the Management of Early Stage Breast Cancer. June 2, 2010.
  • ECRI Institute. Gene expression profiling to guide management of early-stage breast cancer. [Emerging Technology evidence report]. Plymouth Meeting (PA): ECRI Institute; Aug 5, 2011.
  • Vanderlaan BF, Broder MS, Chang EY et al. Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care. 2011; 17(7):455-64.
  • Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations fron the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Geneti Med. 2009 Jan; 11(1):66-73
  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Gene expression profiling in women with lymph node negative breast cancer to select adjuvant chemotherapy. TEC Assessments 2014 Volume 29 (Tab 3)
  • 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 Treatment 2011;127(1): 133-142. PMID 21221771
  • Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME, et al. Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. Jun 20 2012;30(18):2218-2226. PMID 22585699
  • Carlson JJ, Roth JA. The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Aug 2013;141(1):13-22. PMID 23974828
  • Fried G, Moskovitz M. Treatment decisions in estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer patients with intermediate oncotype DX recurrence score results. Springerplus. 2014;3:71. PMID 24567880
  • Frazier TG, Fox KR, Smith JS, et al. A retrospective study of the impact of 21-gene recurrence score assay on treatment choice in node positive micrometastatic breast cancer. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2015;8(1):107-122. PMID 25789420
  • Alvarado M, Carter DL, Guenther JM, et al. The impact of genomic testing on the recommendation for radiation therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: A prospective clinical utility assessment of the 12-gene DCIS score result. J Surg Oncol. May 28 2015. PMID 26031501
  • Brufsky AM. Predictive and Prognostic Value of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score in Hormone Receptor-positive, Node-positive Breast Cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. May 29 2014. PMID 24853663
  • Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. May 15 2013;105(10):701-710. PMID 23641039
  • Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, et al. A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Jul 2015;152(2):389-398. PMID 26119102
  • Sgroi DC, Sestak I, Cuzick J, et al. Prediction of late distant recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptorpositive breast cancer: a prospective comparison of the breast-cancer index (BCI) assay, 21-gene recurrence score, and IHC4 in the TransATAC study population. Lancet Oncol. Sep 11 2013. PMID 24035531
  • Badve SS, Baehner FL, Gray RP, et al. Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol. May 20 2008;26(15):2473-2481. PMID 18487567
  • Khoury T, Yan L, Liu S, et al. Oncotype DX RT-qPCR assay for ER and PR correlation with IHC: a study of 3 different clones. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. Mar 2015;23(3):178-187. PMID 24992175
  • Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tailoring therapies - improving the management of early breast cancer: St GallenInternational Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol. May 4 2015. PMID 25939896
  • Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S. Hanna W, et. al. A population based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast conserving surgery alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015 Jul;152(2):389-98 
  • Harris L, Ismaila N, McShane L, et. al. Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic: Therapy for Women with Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. Journal of Clinical Oncology Volume 31, Number 10, April 1, 2016
  • S. Shak, G. Palmer, R.L. Baehner, et. al. ASCO Annual Meeting Session Breast-Cancer Local Regional and Adjuvant Therapy in Males, Abstract 2009
  • ECRI. Custom Rapid Responses – Guidance. Gene Expression Profiling for Guiding Management of Early Stage Breast Cancer, Published July 10, 2012, Updated August 11, 2015.
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Breast Cancer Version 2.2016.
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Gene Expression Profiling and Expanded Immunohistochemistry Tests for Guiding Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decisions in Early Breast Cancer Management: Mammprint, OncoType DX, IHC4 and Mammostrat. NICE Diagnostic Guidance (DG10). Published September 2013
  • UpToDate. Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Early, Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer, Theodore Foukakis, M.D., PhD, Jonas Bergh M.D., PhD, FRCP. Topic last updated January 16, 2017.
  • UpToDate. Breast Cancer in Men. William Gradishar M.D., Topic last updated May 15, 2017.
  • Genomic Health
  • Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score
  • Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score
  • Issa AM, Chaudhari VS, Marchant GE. The value of multigene predictors of clinical outcome in breast cancer: an analysis of the evidence. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2015 Feb;15(2):277-86
  • Emwold L, Geiger AM, Zujewski J, Harlan LC. Oncotype DX assay and breast cancer in the United States: Usage and concordance with chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015 May:151(1):149-56
  • EGAPP. EGAPP Work Group Recommendation. Can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer. May 15, 2013. 
  • Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Oncotype DX in women and men with ER positive HER2 negative early stage breast cancer who are lymph node negative: A review of clinical effectiveness and guidelines.  
  • Arpino G, Generali D, Sapino A, et. al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: a clinical perspective. Breast 2013 Apr;22(2):109-20. PMID 23462680
  • Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH, et. al. A prospective evaluation of breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 2013 Aug 15;133(4):929-36. PMID 23371464
  • Marrone M, Stewart A, Dotson WD. Clinical utlity of gene-expression profiling in women with early breast cancer: an overview of systematic reviews. Genet Med 2015 Jul;17(7)519-32. PMID 25474343
  • Meleth S, Reeder-Hayes K, Ashok M, et. al. Technology Assessment of Molecular Pathology Testing for the Estimation of Prognosis for Common Cancers. Agency for Healthcare and Research and Quality 2014 May. Project ID CANG0212. PMID 25905152 
  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Evidence Street for Assays of Genetic Expression in Tumor Tissue as a Technique to Determine Prognosis in Patients with Breast Cancer. December 2016. Evidence Street (Site) is a proprietary subscription based web platform dedicated to transparent, efficient healthcare evidence reviews. 
  • Barlett J, Bloom K, Piper T, et. la. Mammostrat as an immunohistochemical multigene assay for prediction of early relapse risk in the tamoxifen versus exemestane adjuvant multicenter trial pathology study. Journal of Clinical Oncology Volume 30 Number 36 December 20, 2012.
  • Bartlett J, Thomas J, Ross D, et. al. Mammostrat as a tool to stratify breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence during endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer Research 2010 12:R47
  • Buus R, Sestak I, Kronenwett R, et al. Comparison of EndoPredict and EPclin with Oncotype DX Recurrence Score for prediction of risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. Nov 2016;108(11). PMID 27400969   
  • Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. Nov 19 2015;373(21):2005-2014. PMID 26412349
  • Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R, et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res. Sep 15 2011;17(18):6012-6020. PMID 21807638
  • Zhang Y, Schnabel CA, Schroeder BE, et al. Breast cancer index identifies early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients at risk for early- and late-distant recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. Aug 1 2013;19(15):4196-4205. PMID 23757354
  • Cardoso F, van't Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, et al. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. Aug 25 2016;375(8):717-729. PMID 27557300
  • Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E, et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with Oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. Aug 1 2013;31(22):2783-2790. PMID 23816962
  • Gnant M, Filipits M, Greil R, et al. Predicting distant recurrence in receptor-positive breast cancer patients with limited clinicopathological risk: using the PAM50 Risk of Recurrence score in 1478 postmenopausal patients of the ABCSG-8 trial treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Ann Oncol. Feb 2014;25(2):339-345. PMID 24347518
  • 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. Apr 10 2010;28(11):1829-1834. PMID 20212256
  • Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M, et al. West German Study Group Phase III PlanB Trial: first prospective outcome data for the 21-gene recurrence score assay and concordance of prognostic markers by central and local pathology assessment. J Clin Oncol. Jul 10 2016;34(20):2341-2349. PMID 26926676
  • Esserman LJ, Berry DA, Cheang MC, et al. Chemotherapy response and recurrence-free survival in neoadjuvant breast cancer depends on biomarker profiles: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat. Apr 2012;132(3):1049-1062. PMID 22198468
  • Saghatchian M, Mook S, Pruneri G, et al. Additional prognostic value of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint((R))) among breast cancer patients with 4-9 positive lymph nodes. Breast. Oct 2013;22(5):682-690. PMID 23347730
  • Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. May 15 2013;105(10):701-710. PMID 23641039
  • Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, et al. A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Jul 2015;152(2):389-398. PMID 26119102
  • Dubsky P, Brase JC, Jakesz R, et al. The EndoPredict score provides prognostic information on late distant metastases in ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. Dec 10 2013;109(12):2959-2964. PMID 24157828
  • Filipits M, Nielsen TO, Rudas M, et al. The PAM50 risk-of-recurrence score predicts risk for late distant recurrence after endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. Mar 1 2014;20(5):1298-1305. PMID 24520097
  • Sestak I, Dowsett M, Zabaglo L, et al. Factors predicting late recurrence for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. Oct 2 2013;105(19):1504-1511. PMID 24029245
  • Hornberger J, Alvarado MD, Rebecca C, et al. Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. Jul 18 2012;104(14):1068-1079. PMID 22767204
  • Kelly CM, Bernard PS, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Agreement in risk prediction between the 21-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX(R)) and the PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17(4):492-498. PMID 22418568
  • Khoury T, Yan L, Liu S, et al. Oncotype DX RT-qPCR assay for ER and PR correlation with IHC: a study of 3 different clones. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. Mar 2015;23(3):178-187. PMID 24992175
  • Drukker CA, Elias SG, Nijenhuis MV, et al. Gene expression profiling to predict the risk of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Dec 2014;148(3):599-613. PMID 25414025
  • Fitzal F, Filipits M, Rudas M, et al. The genomic expression test EndoPredict is a prognostic tool for identifying risk of local recurrence in postmenopausal endocrine receptor-positive, her2neu-negative breast cancer patients randomised within the prospective ABCSG 8 trial. Br J Cancer. Apr 14 2015;112(8):1405-1410. PMID 25867274
  • Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol. Aug 2015;26(8):1533-1546. PMID 25939896
  • Prosigna. Prosigna Overview and Prosigna Package Insert.
  • Sanft T, Aktas B, Schroeder B, et. al. Prospective assessment of the decision-making impact of the breast cancer index in recommending extended adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients with early stage ER positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat 2015 154:533-541
  • Dubsky P, Filipits M, Jakesz R, et. al. EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Annals of Oncology 0:1-8 2012
  • Kronenwett, Bohmann K, Prinzler J, et. al. Decentral gene expression analysis: analytical validation of the endopredict genomic multianalyte breast cancer prognosis test. BMC Cancer 2012, 12:456
  • Muller BM, Keil E, Lehmann A, et. al. The EndoPredict gene-expression assay in clinical practice performance and impact on clinical decisions. PLOS one June 2013 Volume 8 Issue 6
  • Colleoni M, Sun Z, Price KN, et al. Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer during 24 years of follow-up: results from the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials I to V. J Clin Oncol. Mar 20 2016;34(9):927-935. PMID 26786933

  • Burstein HJ, Temin S, Anderson H, et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol. Jul 20 2014;32(21):2255-2269. PMID 24868023

  • Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. Nov 1 2013;31(31):3997-4013. PMID 24101045

  • Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. The Lancet. 2011;378(9793):771-784. PMID

  • Burstein HJ, Lacchetti C, Anderson H, et al. Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update on Ovarian Suppression. J Clin Oncol. May 10 2016;34(14):1689-1701. PMID 26884586

  • Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. Mar 09 2013;381(9869):805-816. PMID 23219286

  • Gray RG, Rea D, Handley K, et al. aTTom: Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years in 6,953 women with early breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2013;31(18_suppl):5-5. PMID 28136060  

  • Hamelinck VC, Bastiaannet E, Pieterse AH, et al. A prospective comparison of younger and older patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy in early breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. Oct 2016;16(5):379-388. PMID 27212474  

  • Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. Jan 2010;11(1):55-65. PMID 20005174

  • Gnant M, Sestak I, Filipits M, et al. Identifying clinically relevant prognostic subgroups of postmenopausal women with node-positive hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy: a combined analysis of ABCSG-8 and ATAC using the PAM50 risk of recurrence score and intrinsic subtype. Ann Oncol. Aug 2015;26(8):1685-1691. PMID 25935792

  • Jasem J, Fisher CM, Amini A, et al. The 21-Gene Recurrence Score assay for node-positive, early-stage breast cancer and impact of RxPONDER Trial on chemotherapy decision-making: have clinicians already decided? J Natl Compr Canc Netw. Apr 2017;15(4):494-503. PMID 28404760

  • Roberts MC, Miller DP, Shak S, et al. Breast cancer-specific survival in patients with lymph node-positive hormone receptor-positive invasive breast cancer and Oncotype DX Recurrence Score results in the SEER database. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Jun 2017;163(2):303-310. PMID 28243896

  • Sestak I, Cuzick J, Dowsett M, et al. Prediction of late distant recurrence after 5 years of endocrine treatment: a combined analysis of patients from the Austrian breast and colorectal cancer study group 8 and arimidex, tamoxifen alone or in combination randomized trials using the PAM50 risk of recurrence score. J Clin Oncol. Mar 10 2015;33(8):916-922. PMID 25332252

  • Sgroi DC, Carney E, Zarrella E, et al. Prediction of late disease recurrence and extended adjuvant letrozole benefit by the HOXB13/IL17BR biomarker. J Natl Cancer Inst. Jul 17 2013;105(14):1036-1042. PMID 23812955

  • Sanft T, Aktas B, Schroeder B, et al. Prospective assessment of the decision-making impact of the Breast Cancer Index in recommending extended adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients with early-stage ER-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Dec 2015;154(3):533-541. PMID 26578401

  • Kelly CM, Bernard PS, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Agreement in risk prediction between the 21-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX(R)) and the PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17(4):492-498. PMID 22418568

  • Krop I, Ismaila N, Fabrice A, et. al. Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women with Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol 35 July 10, 2017

  • EGAPP Recommendation Statement. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: does the use of Oncotype DX tumor gene expression profiling to guide treatment decisions improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genetics in Medicine Volume 18 Number 8 August 2016. PMID 26681310 

 

Policy History:

  • August 2017 - Annual Review, Policy Revised
  • March 2017 - Interim Review, Policy Revised
  • August 2016 - New Policy

Wellmark medical policies address the complex issue of technology assessment of new and emerging treatments, devices, drugs, etc.   They are developed to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. Wellmark medical policies contain only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and do not constitute a contract. Wellmark does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Wellmark or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. Our medical policies may be updated and therefore are subject to change without notice.

 

*CPT® is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association.