Robert Mennel

PURPOSE: To update the recommendations for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast cancer. METHODS: For the 2007 update, an Update Committee composed of members from the full Panel was formed to complete the review and analysis of data published since 1999. Computerized literature searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were performed. The Update Committee's literature review focused attention on available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published tumor marker studies. In general, significant health outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost-effectiveness) were used for making recommendations. Recommendations and CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen categories of breast tumor markers were considered, six of which were new for the guideline. The following categories showed evidence of clinical utility and were recommended for use in practice: CA 15-3, CA 27.29, carcinoembryonic antigen, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, urokinase plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, and certain multiparameter gene expression assays. Not all applications for these markers were supported, however. The following categories demonstrated insufficient evidence to support routine use in clinical practice: DNA/ploidy by flow cytometry, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, proteomics, certain multiparameter assays, detection of bone marrow micrometastases, and circulating tumor cells.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 1997 clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast and colorectal cancers. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials. OPTIONS: Six tumor markers for colorectal cancer and eight for breast cancer were considered. They could be recommended or not for routine use or for special circumstances. In addition to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA 15-3, CA 27.29 was also considered among the serum tumor markers for breast cancer. OUTCOMES: In general, the significant health outcomes identified for use in making clinical practice guidelines (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost-effectiveness) were used. EVIDENCE: A computerized literature search from 1994 to March 1999 was performed. VALUES: The same values for use, utility, and levels of evidence were used by the committee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The same benefit, harms, and costs were used. RECOMMENDATION: Changes were recommended (see Appendix). VALIDATION: The updated recommendations were validated by external review by the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) Health Services Research Committee and by ASCO's Board of Directors. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. METHODS: A literature search and prospectively defined study selection sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective-retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through 2014. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 50 relevant studies. One randomized clinical trial and 18 prospective-retrospective studies were found to have evaluated the clinical utility, as defined by the guideline, of specific biomarkers for guiding decisions on the need for adjuvant systemic therapy. No studies that met guideline criteria for clinical utility were found to guide choice of specific treatments or regimens. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to estrogen and progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, the panel found sufficient evidence of clinical utility for the biomarker assays Oncotype DX, EndoPredict, PAM50, Breast Cancer Index, and urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 in specific subgroups of breast cancer. No biomarker except for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 was found to guide choices of specific treatment regimens. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

Introduction of tumor markers into routine clinical practice has been poorly controlled, with few criteria or guidelines as to how such markers should be used. We propose a Tumor Marker Utility Grading System (TMUGS) to evaluate the clinical utility of tumor markers and to establish an investigational agenda for evaluation of new tumor markers. A Tumor Marker Utility Grading Worksheet has been designed. The initial portion of this worksheet is used to clarify the precise characteristics of the marker in question. These characteristics include the marker designation, the molecule and/or substance and the relevant alteration from normalcy, the assay format and reagents, the specimen type, and the neoplastic disease for which the marker is being evaluated. To determine the clinical utility of each marker, one of several potential uses must be designated, including risk assessment, screening, differential diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring clinical course. For each of these uses, associations between marker assay results and expected biologic process and end points must be determined. However, knowledge of tumor marker data should contribute to a decision in practice that results in a more favorable clinical outcome for the patient, including increased overall survival, increased disease-free survival, improvement in quality of life, or reduction in cost of care. Semiquantitative utility scales have been developed for each end point. The only markers recommended for use in routine clinical practice are those that are assigned utility scores of "++" or " " on a 6-point scale (ranging from 0 to ) in the categories relative to more favorable clinical outcomes. Each utility score assignment should be supported by documentation of the level of evidence used to evaluate the marker. TMUGS will establish a standardized analytic technique to evaluate clinical utility of known and future tumor markers. It should result in improved patient outcomes and more cost-efficient investigation and application of tumor markers.

PURPOSE: We previously reported that four cycles of docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) produced superior disease-free survival (DFS) compared with four cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in early breast cancer. Older women are under-represented in adjuvant chemotherapy trials. In our trial 16% of patients were > or = 65 years. We now report 7-year results for DFS and overall survival (OS) as well as the impact of age, hormone receptor status, and HER2 status on outcome and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either four cycles of standard-dose AC (60/600 mg/m(2); n = 510), or TC (75/600 mg/m(2); n = 506), administered by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The median age in women younger than 65, was 50 years (range, 27 to 64) and for women > or = 65 was 69 years (range, 65 to 77). Baseline characteristics in the two age subgroups were generally well matched, except that older women tended to have more lymph node involvement. At a median of 7 years follow-up, the difference in DFS between TC and AC was significant (81% TC v 75% AC; P = .033; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98) as was OS (87% TC v 82% AC; P = .032; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97). TC was superior in older patients as well as younger patients. There was no interaction of hormone-receptor status or HER-2 status and treatment. Older women experienced more febrile neutropenia with TC and more anemia with AC. CONCLUSION: With longer follow-up, four cycles of TC was superior to standard AC (DFS and OS) and was a tolerable regimen in both older and younger patients.