SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010; 60: 277-300.
  • 2
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. Version 2.2011, March 2011 update. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast.pdf. Accessed on November 18, 2011
  • 3
    Zeng YC. Chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 1023-1024.
  • 4
    Sawka CA, O'Connor AM, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, et al. Appropriateness of adjuvant systemic therapy for axillary node-negative breast cancer: a physician opinion survey. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13: 1459-1469.
  • 5
    Loprinzi CL, Ravdin PM. Decision-making for patients with resectable breast cancer: individualized decisions for and by patients and their physicians. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2003; 1: 189-196.
  • 6
    Shapiro CL, Recht A. Side effects of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1997-2008.
  • 7
    National Cancer Institute. Phase III randomized study of adjuvant combination chemotherapy and hormonal therapy versus adjuvant hormonal therapy alone in women with previously resected axillary node-negative breast cancer with various levels of risk for recurrence (TAILORx trial). October 2010 update. Available from: http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/ECOG-PACCT-1. Accessed on November 18, 2011
  • 8
    National Cancer Institute. The TAILORx breast cancer trial. October 2010 update. Available from: http://www.nci.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/digestpage/TAILORx. Accessed on November 18, 2011.
  • 9
    European Organization for Research and Treatment of Breast Cancer. MINDACT (Microarray In Node-negative and 1 to 3 positive lymph node Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy): a prospective randomized study comparing the 70-gene signature with the common clinical-pathological criteria in selecting patients for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer with 0-3 positive nodes. October 2010 update. Available from: http://www.eortc.be/services/unit/mindact/MINDACT_websiteii.asp. Accessed on November 18, 2011.
  • 10
    Hornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care. 2005; 11: 313-324.
  • 11
    Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, et al. Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer. 2007; 109: 1011-1018.
  • 12
    Klang SH, Hammerman A, Liebermann N, et al. Economic implications of 21-gene breast cancer risk assay from the perspective of an Israeli-managed health-care organization. Value Health. 2010; 13: 381-387.
  • 13
    Chen E, Tong KB, Malin JL. Cost-effectiveness of 70-gene MammaPrint signature in node-negative breast cancer [serial online]. Am J Manag Care. 2010; 16: e333-e342.
  • 14
    Kondo M, Hoshi SL, Ishiguro H, et al. Economic evaluation of 21-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 112: 175-187.
  • 15
    Tsoi DT, Inoue M, Kelly CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of recurrence score-guided treatment using a 21-gene assay in early breast cancer. Oncologist. 2010; 15: 457-465.
  • 16
    Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, Linden HM, et al. Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med. 2005; 7: 380-389.
  • 17
    Retel VP, Joore MA, Knauer M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature versus St. Gallen guidelines and Adjuvant! Online for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46: 1382-1391.
  • 18
    United States Congress. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 111th Congress. October 2010 update. Available from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf. Accessed on November 18, 2011
  • 19
    Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 1183-1192.
  • 20
    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; 24: 3726-3734.
  • 21
    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: 133-142.
  • 22
    Marchionni L, Wilson RF, Wolff AC, et al. Systematic review: gene expression profiling assays in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 358-369.
  • 23
    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: 2817-2826.
  • 24
    Cole F, Gelber RD, Gelber S, et al. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised clinical trials with quality-adjusted survival analysis. Lancet. 2001; 358: 277-286.
  • 25
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005; 365: 1687-1717.
  • 26
    Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. A decision-analysis model. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324: 160-168.
  • 27
    Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 3302-3317.
  • 28
    Gold ME, Russell LB, Siegel JE, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
  • 29
    Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000; 38: 583-637.
  • 30
    Slodkowska EA, Ross JS. MammaPrint 70-gene signature: another milestone in personalized medical care for breast cancer patients. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009; 9: 417-422.
  • 31
    Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163: 1637-1641.
  • 32
    Hillner BE, Weeks JC, Desch CE, et al. Pamidronate in prevention of bone complications in metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 72-79.
  • 33
    Orr RK, Col NF, Kuntz KM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of axillary node dissection in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer and clinically negative axillary nodes. Surgery. 1999; 126: 568-576.
  • 34
    Cremieux PY, Finkelstein SN, Berndt ER, et al. Cost effectiveness, quality-adjusted life-years and supportive care. Recombinant human erythropoietin as a treatment of cancer-associated anaemia. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999; 16: 459-472.
  • 35
    Kurian AW, Thompson RN, Gaw AF, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant trastuzumab regimens in early HER2/neu-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 634-641.
  • 36
    Garrison LP Jr, Lubeck D, Lalla D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2007; 110: 489-498.
  • 37
    Liberato NL, Marchetti M, Barosi G. Cost effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 625-633.
  • 38
    Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, et al. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009; 20: 1319-1329.
  • 39
    Elkin EB, Weinstein MC, Winer EP, et al. HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 854-863.