ArticleOncology and therapy2025
Cost-Utility Analysis of Multigene Assays to Guide Treatment Decisions for Node-Negative Early Breast Cancer.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinicopathologic and patient factors, such as tumor grade, size, age, and menopausal status, provide limited prognostic and predictive information in hormone receptor positive (HR +), human epidermal growth receptor 2 negative (HER2-), node-negative early-stage breast cancer, leading to potential over- or under-treatment. Multigene expression profile tests used in clinical practice in the USA, including the 21-gene assay, 70-gene assay, 12-gene assay, and 50-gene assay, offer prognostic information beyond traditional clinicopathologic features to improve treatment decisions. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these four multigene assays compared with clinicopathologic risk assessment alone.
methodsA decision tree categorized hypothetical patients with HR + /HER2- early-stage invasive breast cancer according to clinical and genomic risk, and integrated clinical expert insights for chemotherapy allocation with literature inputs. A Markov model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes of chemotherapy decisions over a patient's lifetime. The probability of distant breast cancer recurrence was derived from TAILORx (21-gene assay), MINDACT (70-gene assay), and TransATAC (12-gene assay, 50-gene assay) studies. Costs were calculated from a US societal perspective in 2021 US dollars, considering healthcare costs, lost productivity, and patient out-of-pocket expenses.
resultsThe 21-gene assay and 50-gene assay were less costly ( -$12,189 and -$2410, respectively) and more effective [0.23 and 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively] compared with clinicopathologic risk alone. Similarly, the 70-gene assay and 12-gene assay are also cost-effective alternatives [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): 27,760 and 7942, respectively].
conclusionsAll four multigene assays were cost-effective from a societal perspective, offering low net lifetime costs or savings with improved outcomes compared with clinicopathologic risk assessment alone. These assays can help refine treatment decisions by providing prognostic risk estimates. In the case of the 21-gene assay, it can also predict chemotherapy benefit leading to the highest lifetime cost savings and greatest QALY gain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.