Close Window
Aetna Aetna
Clinical Policy Bulletin:
Tumor Markers
Number: 0352


Policy

  1. Aetna considers any of the following serum tumor markers for the stated indication medically necessary:

    1. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer screening (see CPB 0521 - Prostate Cancer Screening), staging, monitoring response to therapy, and detecting disease recurrence. 
    2. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for any of the following:
       
      1. As a preoperative prognostic indicfator in members with known colorectal carcinoma or mucinous appendiceal carcinoma when it will assist in staging and surgical treatment planning; or 
      2. To detect asymptomatic recurrence of colorectal cancer after surgical and/or medical treatment for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (not as a screening test for colorectal cancer); or
      3. To monitor response to treatment for metastatic cancer.
          
    3. 1p19q codeletion molecular cytogenetic analysis for astrocytoma and gliomas
    4. ALK gene fusion as a molecular biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer
    5. ALK translocations for selecting candidates for crizotinib (Xalkori) in inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor
    6. APC for familial adenomatous polyposis when criteria are met in CPB 140 - Genetic Testing; and for desmoid fibromatosis; experimental for other indications.
    7. Afirma Thyroid FNA analysis for assessing fine needle aspiration samples from thyroid nodules that are indeterminate; experimental for other indications.
    8. BCR/ABL fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for lymphoblastic lymphoma, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia and chronic myelogenous leukemia; experimental for other indications.
    9. BRAF V600 mutation for hairy cell leukemia, Lynch syndrome testing for persons meeting criteria in CPB 140 - Genetic Testing, melamoma for vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib (see CPB 715 - Pharmacogenomic and Pharmacodynamic Testing; and colorectal cancer if KRAS nonmutated; experimental for other indications.
    10. Cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) levels for any of the following:
       
      1. As a preoperative diagnostic aid in women with ovarian masses that are suspected to be malignant, such that arrangements can be made for intraoperative availability of a gynecological oncologist if the CA 125 is increased; or
      2. As a screening test for ovarian cancer when there is a history of hereditary cancer syndrome (a pattern of clusters of ovarian cancer within two or more generations); or
      3. Diagnosis of ovarian cancer in women with new symptoms (bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, or urinary frequency and urgency) that have persisted for three or more weeks, where the clinician has performed a pelvic and rectal examination and suspects ovarian cancer; or
      4. In members with adenocarcinoma of unknown primary, to rule out ovarian cancer; or
      5. In members with known ovarian cancer, as an aid in the monitoring of disease, response to treatment, detection of recurrent disease, or assessing value of performing second-look surgery.
         
    11. CA 19-9 to monitor the clinical response to therapy or detect early recurrence of disease in members with known gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, gallbladder cancer, cholangiocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater.
    12. CA 19-9 to rule out cholangiocarcinoma in persons with primary sclerosing cholangitis undergoing liver transplantation.
    13. CA 19-9 as a tumor marker for mucinous appendiceal carcinoma.
    14. CD 20, for determining eligibility for anti-CD20 treatment (rituximab) -- see CPB 0314 - Rituximab (Rituxan).
    15. CD 25, for determining eligibility for denileukin diftitox (Ontak) treatment.
    16. CD 31 immunostaining, for diagnosis of angiosarcoma. 
    17. CD 33, for determining eligibility for anti-CD33 (gemtuzumab, Mylotarg) treatment.   
    18. CD 52, for determining eligibility for anti-CD52 (alemtuzumab, Campath) treatment. 
    19. CD117 (c-kit), for determining eligibility for treatment with imatinib mesylate (Gleevec).   
    20. Cyclin D1, for diagnosis and predicting disease recurrence of mantle cell lymphoma.
    21. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing for tyrosine kinase inhibitors (erlotinib (Tarceva), gefitinib (Iressa), afatinib (Gilotrif)) in non-small cell lung cancer.
    22. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) evaluation in breast, gastric and esophageal cancer - see CPB 0313 - Trastuzumab (Herceptin), Ado-Trastuzumab (Kadcyla) and Pertuzumab (Perjeta).
    23. IDH mutation for glioma
    24. K-ras (KRAS) mutation analysis, with BRAF reflex testing, to predict non-response to cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix) in the treatment of anal adenocarcinoma, metastatic colorectal cancer and small bowel adenocarcinoma; K-ras (KRAS) mutation analysis to predict non-response to erlotinib (Tarceva) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer; experimental for all other indications.
    25. Measurement of estrogen and progesterone receptors on primary breast cancers, and on metastatic lesions if the results would influence treatment planning.
    26. MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 for persons meeting HNPCC/Lynch Syndrome testing criteria in CPB 140 - Genetic Testing; colorectal cancer in persons under age 50; and all persons with Stage II colon cancer; experimental for all other indications,
    27. Mycosis fungoides, diagnosis: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for T-cell receptor gamma chain gene rearrangement as an adjunct to the histopathologic diagnosis of mycosis fungoides.
    28. Myeloperoxidase (MPO) immunostaining, FLT3-ITD, CEBPA mutation, NPM1 mutation, and KIT mutation for diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia.
    29. NPM1 in acute myeloid leukemia; experimental for other indications.
    30. PML/RARA for acute promyelocytic leukemia; experimental for all other indications.
    31. PTEN for persons meeting Cowden syndrome testing criteria in CPB 140 - Genetic Testing; experimental for all other indications.
    32. Placental alkaline phosphatase (PLAP), to diagnose germ cell seminoma and non-seminoma germ cell tumors in unknown primary cancers.
    33. ROS-1 to predict response to crizotinib (Xalkori) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
    34. Serial measurements of alpha fetoprotein (AFP) to diagnose germ cell tumors in members with adenocarcinoma, or carcinoma not otherwise specified, involving mediastinal nodes; or the diagnosis and monitoring of hepatocellular carcinoma (e.g., before considering liver transplantation).
    35. Serial measurements of CA 15-3 (also known as CA 27-29 or Truquant RIA) in following the course of treatment in women diagnosed with breast cancer, especially advanced metastatic breast cancer (an increasing CA 15-3 level may suggest treatment failure).
    36. Serial measurements of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) to diagnose germ cell tumors in members with adenocarcinoma, or carcinoma not otherwise specified, involving mediastinal nodes, or to monitor treatment in members with known trophoblastic tumors (invasive hydatidiform moles and choriocarcinomas) and germinal cell tumors (teratocarcinoma and embryonal cell carcinoma) of the ovaries or testes, or to monitor for relapse after remission is achieved.
    37. Serial measurements of AFP and HCG together to diagnose and monitor testicular cancer.
    38. Steroid hormone receptor status in both pre-menopausal and post-menopausal members to identify individuals most likely to benefit from endocrine forms of adjuvant therapy and therapy for recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.
    39. Oncotype Dx (also known as 21 gene RT-PCR test) to assess necessity of adjuvant chemotherapy in females or males with recently diagnosed breast tumors, where all of the following criteria are met:

      1. Breast cancer is nonmetastatic (node negative1); and
      2. Breast tumor is estrogen receptor positive; and
      3. Breast tumor is HER2 receptor negative or breast tumor is HER2 receptor positive and less than 1 cm in diameter. (Rationale: adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab (Herceptin) is considered to be medically necessary regardless of an Oncotype Dx score for HER2 receptor positive lesions 1 cm or more in diameter); and
      4. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not precluded due to any other factor (e.g., advanced age and/or significant co-morbidities); and
      5. Member and physician (prior to testing) have discussed the potential results of the test and agree to use the results to guide therapy (i.e., member will forgo adjuvant chemotherapy if Oncotype Dx score is low).
         
    40. Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) for the determination of prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed, node negative breast cancer.
    41. ZAP-70, for assessing prognosis and need for aggressive therapy in persons with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

    1 Either standard node dissection negative by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining or sentinel node negative by H&E staining (if sentinel node is negative by H&E, but immunoassay is positive, then still considered node negative for this purpose). In addition, women with isolated tumor cells in lymph nodes (micrometastases) are considered node negative.

    More than one Oncotype Dx test may be medically necessary for persons with breast cancer who have two or more histologically distinct tumors that meet medical necessity criteria. Repeat Oncotype Dx testing or testing of multiple tumor sites in the same person has no proven value for other indications. Oncotype Dx is considered experimental and investigational for node positive breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ (OncotypeDx DCIS), colon cancer (OncotypeDx Colon), and all other indications.  

  2. Aetna considers the bladder tumor antigen (BTA) Stat test, the nuclear matrix protein (NMP22) test, the fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products (Aura-Tek FDfP) test, or the UroVysion fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) test medically necessary in any of the following conditions:

    1. Follow-up of treatment for bladder cancer; or 
    2. Monitoring for eradication of bladder cancer; or 
    3. Recurrences after eradication.

    Aetna considers the BTA Stat test, the NMP22 test, the Aura-Tek FDP test, or the UroVysion fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) test experimental and investigational for screening of bladder cancer, evaluation of hematuria, and all other indications.

  3. Aetna considers the use of the ImmunoCyte immunohistochemistry test medically necessary as an adjunct to cystoscopy or cytology in the monitoring of persons with bladder cancer.

    Aetna considers the ImmunoCyte immunohistochemistry test experimental and investigational in the diagnosis of bladder cancer or for screening for bladder cancer in asymptomatic persons.

  4. Aetna considers genetic testing for Janus Kinase 2 (JAK2) mutations in persons with chronic myeloproliferative disorders (CMPDs) medically necessary for the following indications: 1) qualitative assessment of JAK2-V617F sequence variant using methods with detection thresholds of up to 5% for initial diagnostic assessment of adult patients presenting with symptoms of CMPD; 2) diagnostic assessment of polycythemia vera in adults; and 3) differential diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis and primary myelofibrosis from reactive conditions in adults. 

    Aetna considers genetic testing for Janus Kinase 2 (JAK2) mutations in persons with chronic myeloproliferative disorders (CMPDs) experimental and investigational for any other indication including: 1) diagnostic assessment of myeloproliferative disorders in children; 2) quantitative assessment of JAK2-V617F allele burden subsequent to qualitative detection of JAK2-V617F.

  5. Aetna considers each of the following experimental and investigational. The peer reviewed medical literature does not support these tests as having sufficient sensitivity or specificity necessary to define their clinical role:

    1. CEA used for all other indications including any of the following:

      1. As a screening test for colorectal cancer; or 
      2. As a sole determinant to treat a colorectal cancer member with adjuvant therapy or systemic therapy for presumed metastatic disease; or
      3. For diagnosis, prognosis, or monitoring of treatment in members with lung cancer; or 
      4. For routine use of CEA alone for monitoring response to treatment of colorectal when there are other simple tests available to indicate a response; or
      5. For screening, diagnosis, staging or routine surveillance of breast cancer.
         
    2. AFP for the diagnosis of trophoblastic tumors and other oncologic indications.
    3. Assaying for loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on the long arm of chromosome 18 (18q) or deleted in colon cancer (DCC) protein (18q-LOH/DCC) for colorectal cancer.
    4. Biomarker Translation (BT) test for breast cancer and other indications.
    5. BluePrint molecular subtyping profile for breast cancer
    6. BRAF mutation analysis in lung cancer, thyroid cancer.
    7. Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio (HOXB13:IL17BR).
    8. BreastNext Next-Gen Cancer Panel
    9. CA 125 for all other indications including use as a screening test for colorectal cancer or ovarian cancer (other than as indicated above) or for differential diagnosis of members with symptoms of colonic disease.
    10. CA 19-9 for all other indications including breast, colorectal, esophageal, gastro-esophageal, liver, or uterine cancer; pancreatic pseudocyst; screening persons with primary sclerosing cholangiitis without signs or symptoms of cholangiocarcinoma; or screening persons with primary sclerosing cholangitis for development of cholangiocarcinoma.
    11. CancerNext Next-Gen Cancer Panel
    12. Carcinoembryonic antigen cell adhesion molecule 6 (CEACAM6) for predicting the risk of breast cancer.
    13. Carcinoembryonic antigen cellular adhesion molecule-7 (CEACAM-7) expression as a predictive marker for rectal cancer recurrence.
    14. Caris Target Now Molecular Profiling Test.
    15. CellSearch assay (for all cancers).
    16. CK5, CK14, p63, and Racemase P504S testing for prostate cancer.
    17. c-Met expression for predicting prognosis in persons with advanced NSCLC and colorectal cancer, and other indications.
    18. Cofilin (CFL1) as a prognostic and drug resistance marker in non-small cell lung cancer.
    19. ColonSentry test for screening of colorectal cancer.
    20. Colonext Next-Gen Cancer Panel
    21. ColoPrint, CIMP, LINE-1 hypomethylation, and Immune cells for colon cancer.
    22. Colorectal Cancer DSA (Almac Diagnostics, Craigavon, UK)
    23. CxBladder Test
    24. Cyclin D1 and FADD (Fas-associated protein with death domain) for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
    25. DecisionDx-UM (uveal melanoma) (Castle Biosciences, Phoenix, AZ)
    26. DCIS Recurrence Score.
    27. Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) (also known as "prothrombin produced by vitamin K absence or antagonism II" [PIVKA II]) for diagnosing and monitoring hepatocellular carcinoma and other indications.
    28. EarlyCDT-Lung test.
    29. EGFR gene expression analysis for transitional (urothelial) cell cancer
    30. EGFRVIII for glioblastoma multiforme
    31. EML4-ALK as a diagnostic tool for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.
    32. Estrogen and progesterone receptors when used alone to assign a member with breast cancer to prognostic groupings since they are relatively weak predictors of long-term relapse and breast cancer related mortality rates. 
    33. Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 protein (ERCC1) for persons with NSCLC, colon or with gastric cancer who are being considered for treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy, and other indications.
    34. FoundationOne and FoundationOne Heme
    35. Gene hypermethylation for prostate cancer
    36. GeneKey (GeneKey Corp., Boston, MA)
    37. GeneSearch Breast Lymph Node (BLN) assay.
    38. Glutathione-S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) for screening, detection and management of prostate cancer.
    39. HE4 for ovarian cancer and other indications.
    40. HERmark testing for breast cancer and other indications.
    41. Insight DX Breast Cancer Profile
    42. Mammaprint.
    43. Mammostrat
    44. Microarray-based gene expression profile testing using the MyPRS test for multiple myeloma.
    45. Micro-RNAs (miRNAs) miRview mets and miRview mets2 (Rosetta Genomics Laboratories, Philadelphia, PA; Rosetta Genomics Ltd., Rehovot, Israel)
    46. Mirinform Thyroid Cancer Test
    47. Mucin 4 expression as a predictor of survival in colorectal cancer.
    48. My Prognostic Risk Signature (MyPRS) (Signal Genetics LLC, New York, NY)
    49. NRAS mutation for selecting persons with metastatic colorectal cancer who may benefit from (i) EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibody therapies cetuximab and panitumumab or (ii) anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab; to predict disease prognosis and select persons with melanoma who may benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, and other indications.
    50. OVA1 test.
    51. OvaCheck test
    52. Ovanext Next-Gen Cancer Panel.
    53. OvaSure.
    54. OncInsights (Intervention Insights, Grand Rapids, MI)
    55. Panexia test
    56. Pathwork Tissue of Origin test.
    57. Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphonate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit alpha polypeptide gene (PIK3CA) for predicting disease prognosis and selecting individuals with metastatic colorectal cancer who are being considered for treatment with EGFR antagonists cetuximab and panitumumab, and other indications.
    58. PreOvar test for the KRAS-variant to determine ovarian cancer risk.
    59. Previstage GCC for colorectal cancer
    60. Prolaris for prostate cancer
    61. ProOnc TumorSourceDx test (Prometheus Laboratories, San Diego, CA) to identify tissue or origin for metastatic tumor.
    62. Prostate core mitotic test
    63. Prostate Px and Post-Op Px for predicting recurence of prostate cancer.
    64. Proveri prostate cancer assay (PPCA)
    65. PTEN gene expression for non-small cell lung cancer
    66. Ras oncogenes (except KRAS and BRAF).
    67. ResponseDx Colon
    68. Ribonucleotide reductase subunit M1 (RRM1) for persons with NSCLC who are being considered for treatment with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, and other indications.
    69. ROS1 re-arrangements for persons with lung cancer who may benefit from crizotinib therapy, and other indications.
    70. Rotterdam Signature 76-gene panel.
    71. Serum amyloid A as a biomarker for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma to monitor disease recurrence and rtargetesponse to therapy.
    72. Single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer (Oncovue, Brevagen)
    73. TargetPrint gene expression test for evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2receptor status in breast cancer.
    74. The 41-gene signature assay
    75. Theros Breast Cancer Index.
    76. Theros CancerType ID (bioTheranostics Inc., San Diego, CA)
    77. Thymidylate synthase..
    78. TMPRSS fusion genes for prostate cancer.
    79. Topographic genotyping (PathFinderTG).
    80. Total (whole) gene sequencing for cancer.
    81. UroCor cytology panels (DD23 and P53) for bladder cancer
    82. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF).
    83. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) expression for identifying persons with colorectal cancer that is likely to respond to VEGF inhibition, and other indications.
    84. Veristrat.
    85. WT1 mutation, RUNX1 mutation, MLL-PTD, IDH1 mutation, IDH2 R172, IDH2 codon 140 mutation.
    86. Any of the following circulating tumor markers also is considered experimental and investigational for screening asymptomatic subjects for cancer, diagnosis, staging, routine surveillance of cancer and monitoring the response to treatment:
       

      a2-PAG

      CA-SCC

      MAM-6

      TAG12

      AMACR Cathepsin-D, Cathepsin-L Motility-related protein (MRP)

      TAG72

      Bcl-2 Cyclin E (fragments or whole length) Multidrug resistance glycoprotein (Mdr1)

      TAG72.3

      BCM DU-PAN-2 Murine double minute 2 (MDM2) TAG72.5
      CA195

      Early prostate cancer antigen (EPCA)

      NSE

      TATI

      CA242 Guanylyl cyclase C (Previstage GCC molecular test) p53 (TP53)

      Thrombospondin-1 (THBS-1)

      CA50 Hepsin PCA3 (DD3) / UpM3 Thymosin B15
      CA549 Human kallikrein 2 (HK2)

      PNA/ELLA

      TNF-a
      CA72-4 LASA

      Prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA)

      Topoisomerase II Alpha (TOP2A)
      CAM17-1

      LPA

      SCC TPA
      CAM26

      M 26

      SLEX

      Thymosin B15
      CAM29 M 29

      SPAN-1

      Nuclear Matrix Protein 66 (NMP66)

      CAR-3

      MSA

      SLX

      Anti-malignin antibody screen (AMAS) test

      CYFRA21-1

      MCA

      ST-439

       


Background

Tumor markers are substances normally produced in low quantities by cells in the body. Detection of a higher-than-normal serum level by radioimmunoassay or immunohistochemical techniques usually indicates the presence of a certain type of cancer.  Currently, the main use of tumor mfarkers is to assess a cancer's response to treatment and to check for recurrence. In some types of cancer, tumor marker levels may reflect the extent or stage of the disease and can be useful in predicting how well the disease will respond to treatment.  A decrease or return to normal in the level of a tumor marker may indicate that the cancer has responded favorably to therapy.  If the tumor marker level rises, it may indicate that the cancer is spreading.  Finally, measurements of tumor marker levels may be used after treatment has ended as a part of follow-up care to check for recurrence.

However, in many cases the literature states that measurements of tumor marker levels alone are insufficient to diagnose cancer for the following reasons: (1) tumor marker levels can be elevated in people with benign conditions; (2) tumor marker levels are not elevated in every person with cancer, especially in the early stages of the disease; and (3) many tumor markers are not specific to a particular type of cancer; and (4) the level of a tumor marker can be elevated by more than one type of cancer.

Elevated levels of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) may be found in the blood of men with benign prostate conditions, such as prostatitis and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), or with a malignant growth in the prostate. While PSA does not allow distinction between benign prostate conditions and cancer, an elevated PSA level may indicate that other tests are necessary to determine whether cancer is present. PSA levels have been shown to be useful in monitoring the effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment, and in checking for recurrence after treatment has ended. Use of PSA for screening remains very controversial.  Although researchers are in the process of studying the value of PSA along with digital rectal exams for routine screening of men ages 55 to 74 for prostate cancer; and the literature does not show at this time whether using PSA to screen for prostate cancer actually does reduce the number of deaths caused by this cancer.  The American Cancer Society recommends annual screening with PSA and digital rectal exam for African American men and men with familial tendency age 40 or older and all men age 50 or older.

In a review on biomarkers for prostate cancer detection, Parekh, et al. (2007) stated that prostate stem cell antigen, alpha-methyl coenzyme-A racemase, PCA3, early prostate cancer antigen, hepsin and human kallikrein 2 are promising markers that are currently undergoing validation. An assessment of PCA3 prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2013) concluded: "For diagnostic accuracy, there was a low strength of evidence that PCA3 had better diagnostic accuracy for positive biopsy results than tPSA elevations, but insufficient evidence that this led to improved intermediate or long-term health outcomes. For all other settings, comparators, and outcomes, there was insufficient evidence."

Hutchinson et al (2005) stated that in tissue-based assays, thymosin beta15 (B15) has been shown to correlate with prostate cancer and with recurrence of malignancy. To be clinically effective, it must be shown that thymosin B15 is released by the tumor into body fluids in detectable concentrations.  These researchers developed a quantitative assay that can measure clinically relevant levels of thymosin B15 in human urine.  Sixteen antibodies were raised against recombinant thymosin B15 and/or peptide conjugates.  One antibody, having stable characteristics over the wide range of pH and salt concentrations found in urine and minimal cross-reactivity with other beta thymosins, was used to develop a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).  Urinary thymosin B15 concentration was determined for control groups; normal (n = 52), prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN, n = 36), and patients with prostate cancer; untreated (n = 7) with subsequent biochemical failure, radiation therapy (n = 17) at risk of biochemical recurrence.  The operating range of the competition ELISA fell between 2.5 and 625 ng/ml.  Recoveries exceeded 75%, and the intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variability were 3.3% and 12.9%, respectively.  No cross-reactivity with other urine proteins was observed.  A stable thymosin B15 signal was recovered from urine specimens stored at -20 degrees C for up to 1 year.  At a threshold of 40 (ng/dl)/microg protein/mg creatinine), the assay had a sensitivity of 58% and a specificity of 94%.  Relative to the control groups, thymosin B15 levels were greater than this threshold in a significant fraction of patients with prostate cancer (p < 0.001), including 5 of the 7 patients who later experienced PSA recurrence.  The authors concluded that an ELISA that is able to detect thymosin B15 at clinically relevant concentrations in urine from patients with prostate cancer has been established.  They noted that the assay will provide a tool for future clinical studies to validate urinary thymosin B15 as a predictive marker for recurrent prostate cancer.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a normal cell product that is over-expressed by adenocarcinomas, primarily of the colon, rectum, breast, and lung. It is normally found in small amounts in the blood of most healthy people, but may become elevated in people who have cancer or some benign conditions.  According to the available literature, the primary use of CEA is in monitoring colorectal cancer, especially when the disease has metastasized.  CEA is also used after treatment to check for recurrence of colorectal cancer.  However, the literature indicates a wide variety of other cancers can produce elevated levels of this tumor marker, including melanoma; lymphoma; and cancers of the breast, lung, pancreas, stomach, cervix, bladder, kidney, thyroid, liver, and ovary.  Elevated CEA levels can also occur in patients with non-cancerous conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease, pancreatitis, and liver disease.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)'s update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer (Gershon, et al., 2006) stated that post-operative CEA levels should be performed every 3 months for stage II and III disease for at least 3 years if the patient is a potential candidate for surgery or chemotherapy of metastatic disease.

The Gynecologic Cancer Foundation, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, and the American Cancer Society have issued a consensus statement to promote early detection of ovarian cancer, which recommends that women who have symptoms, including bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, and urinary frequency and urgency, are urged to see a gynecologist if symptoms are new and persist for more than three weeks (ACS, 2007; SGO, 2007).  Ovarian cancer is among the deadliest types of cancer because diagnosis usually comes very late, after the cancer has spread. If the cancer is found and surgically removed before it spreads outside the ovary, the five year survival rate is 93%. However, only 19% of cases are detected early enough for that kind of successful intervention. It is estimated that 22,430 new cases and 15,280 deaths will be reported in 2007 (ACS, 2007). The consensus statement recommendations are based on studies that show the above symptoms appeared in women with ovarian cancer more than in other women (Goff, et al., 2004; Daly & Ozols, 2004). The recommendations acknowledge that there is not consensus on what physicians should do when patients present with these symptoms. According to a consensus statement issued by the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation, pelvic and rectal examination in women with the symptoms is one first step. If there is a suspicion of cancer, the next step may be a transvaginal ultrasound to check the ovaries for abnormal growths, enlargement, or telltale pockets of fluid that can indicate cancer. Testing for CA-125 levels should also be considered.

There is no evidence available that measurement of CA-125 can be effectively used for widespread screening to reduce mortality from ovarian cancer, nor that the use of this test would result in decreased rather than increased morbidity and mortality.  According to the available literature, not all women with elevated CA 125 levels have ovarian cancer. CA 125 levels may also be elevated by cancers of the uterus, cervix, pancreas, liver, colon, breast, lung, and digestive tract. Non-cancerous conditions that can cause elevated CA 125 levels include endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, peritonitis, pancreatitis, liver disease, and any condition that inflames the pleura.  Menstruation and pregnancy can also cause an increase in CA 125.  However, according to the available literature, changes in CA 125 levels can be effectively used in the management of treatment for ovarian cancer. In women with ovarian cancer being treated with chemotherapy, the literature suggests a falling CA 125 level generally indicates that the cancer is responding to treatment and increased survival is expected. Increasing CA 125 levels during or after treatment, on the other hand, may suggest that the cancer is not responding to therapy or that residual cancer remains.  According to the available literature, failure of the CA 125 level to return to normal after three cycles of chemotherapy indicates residual tumor, early treatment failure and decreased survival. Under accepted guidelines, CA 125 levels can also be used to monitor patients for recurrence of ovarian cancer.  Although an elevated CA 125 level is highly correlated with the presence of ovarian cancer, the literature suggests a normal value does not exclude residual or recurrent disease.

Aetna's preventive services guidelines are based on the recommendations of leading primary care medical professional organizations and federal public health agencies.  None of these organizations recommend routine screening of average-risk, asymptomatic women with serum CA-125 levels for ovarian cancer.  These organizations have concluded that serum CA-125 levels are not sufficiently sensitive or specific for use as a screening test for ovarian cancer, and that the harms of such screening outweigh the benefits.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2002) has stated that "[u]nfortunately, there is no screening test for ovarian cancer that has proved effective in screening low-risk asymptomatic women. Measurement of CA 125 levels and completion of pelvic ultrasonography (both abdominal and transvaginal) have been the two tests most thoroughly evaluated.... Data suggest that currently available tests do not appear to be beneficial for screening low-risk, asymptomatic women because their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value have all been modest at best. Because of the low incidence of disease, reported to be approximately one case per 2,500 women per year, it has been estimated that a test with even 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity would have a positive predictive value of only 4.8%, meaning 20 of 21 women undergoing surgery would not have primary ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, no test available approaches this level of sensitivity or specificity."

The National Cancer Institute (2004) has stated: "There is insufficient evidence to establish that screening for ovarian cancer with serum markers such as CA 125 levels, transvaginal ultrasound, or pelvic examinations would result in a decrease in mortality from ovarian cancer.  A serious potential harm is the false-positive test result, which may lead to anxiety and invasive diagnostic procedures. There is good evidence that screening for ovarian cancer with the tests above would result in more diagnostic laparoscopies and laparotomies than new ovarian cancers found. Unnecessary oophorectomies may also result."

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2004) recommends against routine screening with serum CA-125 level for ovarian cancer.  The Task Force concluded that the potential harms of such screening outweigh the potential benefits.

A variety of other tumor markers have been investigated for early detection of ovarian cancer as well as different combinations of tumor markers complementary to CA 125 that could potentially offer greater sensitivity and specificity than CA 125 alone.  Preliminary studies on HE4 (human epididymis protein 4), a relatively new marker for ovarian cancer, reported similar sensitivity to CA 125 when comparing ovarian cancer cases to healthy controls, and a higher sensitivity when comparing ovarian cancer cases to benign gynecologic disease (Hellstrom, et al., 2003 & 2008; Moore, et al., 2008;)  However, an assessment on genomic tests for ovarian cancer prepared by Duke University for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, 2006) stated, "Although research remains promising, adaptation of genomic tests into clinical practice must await appropriately designed and powered studies in relevant clinical settings."  Further studies are needed to determine if HE4 significantly adds to the sensitivity of CA 125 while maintaining a high specificity.

CA 15-3 is a serum cancer antigen that has been used in the management of patients with breast cancer.  According to the available literature, its low detection rate in early stage disease indicates that CA 15-3 cannot be used to screen or diagnose patients with breast cancer.  It has been widely used to monitor the effectiveness of treatment for metastatic cancer. Cancers of the ovary, lung, and prostate may also raise CA 15-3 levels.  The literature indicates elevated levels of CA 15-3 may be associated with non-cancerous conditions, such as benign breast or ovarian disease, endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and hepatitis.

Similar to the CA 15-3 antigen, CA 27-29 is found in the blood of most breast cancer patients. The literature indicates CA 27-29 levels may be used in conjunction with other procedures (such as mammograms and measurements of other tumor marker levels) to check for recurrence in women previously treated for stage II and stage III breast cancer. CA 27-29 levels can also be elevated by cancers of the colon, stomach, kidney, lung, ovary, pancreas, uterus, and liver.  First trimester pregnancy, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, benign breast disease, kidney disease, and liver disease are non-cancerous conditions that can also elevate CA 27-29 levels.

Initially found in colorectal cancer patients, CA 19-9 has also been identified in patients with pancreatic, stomach, hepatocellular cancer, and bile duct cancer. In those who have pancreatic cancer, the literature indicates higher levels of CA 19-9 tend to be associated with more advanced disease.  Although the sensitivity of the CA 19-9 level in patients with pancreatic cancer is relatively high, the specificity is lowered by elevations that occur in patients with benign pancreatic or liver disease.  Non-cancerous conditions that may elevate CA 19-9 levels include gallstones, pancreatitis, cirrhosis of the liver, and cholecystitis.  Although excellent correlations have been reported between CA 19-9 measurements and relapse in patients with pancreatic cancer who are followed after surgical resection, no patient has been salvaged by the earlier diagnosis of relapse, a fact that reflects the lack of effective therapy.

Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2010) state that measurement of CA 19-9 should be considered in evaluating patients with intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer. The guidelines note that CA 19-9 is often elevated in persons with cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer, although this marker is not specific for these cancers.  Nehls, et al. (2004) considered CA19-9 as one of the several new potential tumor markers for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma.  Levy, et al. (2005) aimed to characterize the test properties of CA 19-9 and of a change in CA 19-9 over time in predicting cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Charts of 208 patients were reviewed. Fourteen patients had cholangiocarcinoma. Median CA 19-9 was higher with cholangiocarcinoma (15 versus 290 U/ml, p < 0.0001). A cutoff of 129 U/ml provided: sensitivity 78.6%, specificity 98.5%, adjusted positive predictive value 56.6% and negative predictive value 99.4%. The median change over time was 664 U/ml in cholangiocarcinoma compared to 6.7 U/ml in primary sclerosing cholangitis alone (p < 0.0001). A cutoff of 63.2 U/ml for change in CA 19-9 provided: sensitivity 90%, specificity 98% and positive predictive value 42%.

CA 19-9 is produced by adenocarcinomas of the pancreas, stomach, gall-bladder, colon, ovary, and lung, and it is shed into the circulation.  Although numerous studies have addressed the potential utility of CA 19-9 in adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum, the sensitivity of CA 19-9 was always less than that of the CEA test for all stages of disease. Its use for screening asymptomatic populations has been hampered by a false-positive rate of 15% to 30% in patients with non-neoplastic diseases of the pancreas, liver, and biliary tract.  Only a few studies have addressed the use of CA 19-9 in monitoring patients' post-primary therapy. Significant postsurgical decreases are observed for CA 19-9, but these decreases have not been correlated with survival or disease-free interval. In monitoring response to treatment, decreases in CEA have been found to more accurately reflect response to therapy than did decreases of CA 19-9. Progressive increases of the marker may signal disease progression in 25% of the patients who express the CA 19-9 marker, but this monitoring provides only a minimal lead time of 1 to 3 months. Monitoring with CA 19-9 has not been shown to improve the management of patients with colorectal cancer. The serum CA 19-9 level does not add significant information to that provided by CEA, which is currently regarded as the marker of choice for this neoplasm.

Sinakos and colleagues (2011) evaluated the long-term outcomes in Mayo Clinic patients presenting with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)  between 2000 and 2010 (n= 73) for incidence of cholagiocarcinoma (CCA).    The results showed initial levels of CA 19-9 in patients without CCA were significantly lower than those from patients with CCA (p < 0.0001).  No factors known  to affect CA 19-9 levels were identified in 33% of the patients without CCA; endoscopic treatment and recurrent bacterial cholangitis were associated with levels of CA 19-9 in 26% and 22% of these patients, respectively.

Juntermanns (2011) prospectively analyzed a bile duct tumor database and retrieved records of 238 patinets who underwent surgery between 1999 and 2008.  Their findings included that pre-operative CA19-9 serum levels did not show a statically reliable differentiation between benign or malignant dignity.  The authors concluded that current diagnostics cannot differentiate malignant from benign tumor masses in the hepatic hilum with required reliability.  The authors further concluded that administration of CIK cells, thymus factor, IL-2 and IFN-alpha after AHSCT could improve the immunologic function of patients, and TH1/TH2 ratio may virtually reflect the immune status of patients, but that more information is required to make prognostic assessments of immune reconstruction and the long-term survival rate.

Sarbia et al (1993) investigated 69 adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction and found high rates of antigen expression were found for the “intestinal” markers CA 19-9 (between 55.5% and 100%) and BW 494 (between 42.9 and 86.7%).  The authors concluded that these data, in combination with CK-20 expression, PGII, and 2B5 indicate that the distribution of adenocarcinomas with gastric and.or intestinal differentiation at the esophagogastric junction forms a continuum with out clear-cut borders.  This study has not been replicated and NCCN guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers does not include recommendations for CA 19-9 testing for these indications (NCCN, 2011).

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)'s update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer (Gershon, et al., 2006) stated that for pancreatic cancer, CA 19-9 can be measured every 1 to 3 months for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease receiving active therapy.

Mucinous carcinoma of the appendix is a rare entity most commonly associated with primary tumors of the appendix and colon, and for which spread is generally confined to the abdominal cavity (Andreopoulou et al, 2007).  Imaging assessment of these mucinous lesions is difficult, and recent studies have explored the use of tumor markers as clinical tools in evaluation of mucinous carcinoma of the appendix. 

Carmignani et al (2004)  evaluated patients with synchronous systemic and intraperitoneal dissemination of appendix cancer greated with cytoreductive surgery and perioperative regional chemotherapy with a mean follow up time of 42.6 months.  Results of this study indicated that patients with elevated CEA and CA 19-9 levels had a shorter median survival time (p=0.0083 and p = 0.0193, respectively).  In a subsequent study, Carmingnani et al (2004) prospectively recorded tumor markers CEA and CA19-9 within 1 week prior to definitive treatment.  The investigators found CEA elevated in 56% of 532 patients and CA19-9 elevated in 67.1% of those patients.  They reported that “although the absolute level of tumor marker did not correlate with prognosis, a normal value indicated an improved survival.”  Their findings included an elevated CEA in 35.2% of 110 patients determined to have recurrent disease and an elevated CA 19-9 in 62.9%, while 68.2% of patients had at least one of the tumor markers elevated.

Current guidelines indicate that for liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis, stringent efforts should be made to detect superadded cholangiocarcinoma, including measurement of CA 19-9 (Devlin & O'Grady, 1999).

Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is normally produced in increasing quantities by the placenta during pregnancy. Accepted guidelines provide that HCG levels can be used to screen for choriocarcinoma in women who are at high risk for the disease, and to monitor the treatment of trophoblastic disease. The literature states that elevated HCG levels may also indicate the presence of cancers of the testis, ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, and lung.

Accepted guidelines provide that alpha fetoprotein (AFP) and b-HCG measurements are valuable for determining prognosis and monitoring therapy in patients with non-seminomatous germ cell cancer. Because of the low incidence of elevated AFP and b-HCG levels in early-stage cancer, the literature suggests these markers have no value in screening for testicular cancer. However, the specificity of these markers is such that when determined simultaneously, at least one marker will be positive in 85% of patients with active cancer. The value of AFP and b-HCG as markers is enhanced by a low frequency of false-positive results and by the chemoresponsiveness of testicular cancer. The literature states that only rarely do patients with other types of cancer have elevated levels of AFP. Non-cancerous conditions that can cause elevated AFP levels include benign liver conditions, such as cirrhosis or hepatitis, ataxia telangiectasia, Wiscott-Aldrich syndrome, and pregnancy.

Alpha-fetoprotein is normally produced by a developing fetus.  Alpha fetoprotein levels begin to decrease soon after birth and are usually undetectable in the blood of healthy adults, except during pregnancy. According to accepted guidelines, an elevated level of AFP strongly suggests the presence of either primary liver cancer or germ cell cancer of the ovary or testicle. As AFP is an established test for the diagnosis and monitoring of hepatoma, it is used as a screening tool to rule out the presence of a liver neoplasm before considering liver transplantation. This is especially pertinent in cases (e.g., cirrhosis) where there is an increased risk of developing a primary liver tumor.

The estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor are intracellular receptors that are measured directly in tumor tissue. These receptors are polypeptides that bind their respective hormones, translocate to the nucleus, and induce specific gene expression. Most oncologists have used the estrogen receptor and also the progesterone receptor not only to predict the probability of response to hormonal therapy at the time of metastatic disease, but also to predict the likelihood of recurrent disease, and to predict the need for adjuvant hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. Although these latter uses for estrogen and progesterone receptors are commonly accepted by most oncologists, the data on which these conclusions are based are quite controversial.

Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) has been detected in patients with neuroblastoma, small cell lung cancer, Wilms' tumor, melanoma, and cancers of the thyroid, kidney, testicle, and pancreas. However, studies of NSE as a tumor marker have concentrated primarily on patients with neuroblastoma and small cell lung cancer. According to the available literature, measurement of NSE level in patients with these diseases cannot be correlated to the extent of the disease, the patient's prognosis, or the patient's response to treatment because of the poor sensitivity of this marker.

LASA is a complex marker that measures the amount of sialic acid in serum and can be elevated in serum from patients with any number of different neoplasms. This serum cancer marker has not been widely accepted for use in the detection or prognosis of colorectal carcinoma. There is no practical information concerning outcome and the use of LASA in the medical literature. Although several articles describe the use of LASA in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and its association with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, it has been shown that patients with colorectal polyps and colorectal carcinoma both have elevated LASA levels, and that the levels returned to baseline after removal of either polyps or carcinomas.

p53 is a tumor suppressor gene on the short arm of chromosome 17 that encodes a protein that is important in the regulation of cell division. Although the full role of p53 in the normal and neoplastic cell is unknown, there is evidence that the gene product is important in preventing the division of cells containing damaged DNA. p53 gene deletion or mutation is a frequent event along with other molecular abnormalities in colorectal carcinogenesis. The literature on p53 abnormality and prognosis in colorectal cancer suffers from a paucity of reported data and the use of a variety of techniques in assay and statistical analysis in the small numbers of cases analyzed. For these reasons, the literature generally does not recommend p53 analysis as a routine approach to assisting in the management of patients with colorectal cancer.

The ras proto-oncogenes are normal cellular components, which are thought to be important for transduction of signals required for proliferation and differentiation.   The ras oncogene family has 3 members: H-ras, K-ras, and N-ras.  Ras gene mutations can be found in a variety of tumor types, although the incidence varies greatly. The highest incidences are found in adenocarcinomas of the pancreas (90%), colon (50%), and lung (30%); thyroid tumors (50%), and myeloid leukemia (30%).

Investigators have established an association between some genotypes of K-ras (KRAS) oncogenes and response to treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab (Lievre et al, 2006 and 2008; Di Fiore et al, 2007; Gonçalves et al, 2008; De Roock et al, 2008).  Patients whose tumors express specific forms of the KRAS gene exhibit considerably decreased responses to cetuximab and panitumumab.  It has been theorized that cetuximab and panitumumab do not target epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) associated with these specific KRAS mutations and thus are unable to block their activation.  It has been suggested that KRAS genotype be considered as a selection factor for cancer patients who are candidates for treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab.

Karapetis and colleagues (2008) stated that treatment with cetuximab improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and preserves the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer that has not responded to chemotherapy. The mutation status of the K-ras gene in the tumor may affect the response to cetuximab and have treatment-independent prognostic value.  These investigators analyzed tumor samples, obtained from 394 of 572 patients (68.9 %) with colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive cetuximab plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone, to look for activating mutations in exon 2 of the K-ras gene.  They evaluated if the mutation status of the K-ras gene was associated with survival in the cetuximab and supportive-care groups.  Of the tumors evaluated for K-ras mutations, 42.3 % had at least one mutation in exon 2 of the gene.  The effectiveness of cetuximab was significantly associated with K-ras mutation status (p = 0.01 and p < 0.001 for the interaction of K-ras mutation status with OS and PFS, respectively).  In patients with wild-type K-ras tumors, treatment with cetuximab as compared with supportive care alone significantly improved OS (median of 9.5 versus 4.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.74; p < 0.001) and PFS (median of 3.7 months versus 1.9 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.40; 95 % CI, 0.30 to 0.54; p < 0.001).  Among patients with mutated K-ras tumors, there was no significant difference between those who were treated with cetuximab and those who received supportive care alone with respect to OS (hazard ratio, 0.98; p = 0.89) or PFS (hazard ratio, 0.99; p = 0.96).  In the group of patients receiving best supportive care alone, the mutation status of the K-ras gene was not significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio for death, 1.01; p = 0.97).  The authors concluded that patients with a colorectal tumor bearing mutated K-ras did not benefit from cetuximab, whereas patients with a tumor bearing wild-type K-ras did benefit from cetuximab.  The mutation status of the K-ras gene had no influence on survival among patients treated with best supportive care alone.

The ASCO's provisional clinical opinion on testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy (Allegra et al, 2009) stated that based on systematic reviews of the relevant literature, all patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who are candidates for anti-EGFR antibody therapy should have their tumor tested for KRAS mutations in a CLIA-accredited laboratory.  If KRAS mutation in codon 12 or 13 is detected, then patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma should not receive anti-EGFR antibody therapy as part of their treatment.

The KRAS oncogene mutation tests are intended to aid in the formulation of treatment decisions for patients who may be candidates for treatment of metastatic epithelial cancers with anti-EGFR therapies such as cetuximab or panitumumab.  Several tests for KRAS mutation are currently available in the United States; however, at this time, no KRAS genotype test kits have been approved by the FDA.

At the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), data on 540 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the randomized, phase III CRYSTAL trial were presented.  Among 192 patients with KRAS mutations, there was no improvement in overall responses or PFS from the addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy.  In the patients with normal KRAS, the 1-year PFS rate was 43% for patients receiving cetuximab versus 25% for those receiving only standard chemotherapy, and the overall response rate was 59% versus 43%, respectively (van Cutsem, 2008).  Also at the 2008 ASCO meeting, data from 233 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were presented that confirmed the correlation of KRAS status with patient response to anti-EGFR therapy.  No benefit was found after addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy with FOLFOX (the combination of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in patients with a mutated KRAS; however, addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX increased both response rate and PFS in patients with a wild-type (i.e., un-mutated) KRAS gene (Bokemeyer, 2008).  Response to panitumumab was correlated to KRAS status in a published phase III trial.  A total of 427 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer received either panitumumab or best supportive care.  Panitumumab exhibited a 17% response rate among patients with normal KRAS, but 0% response among patients with KRAS mutations (Amado, 2008).

A meta-analysis of results from 8 studies involving 817 patients with colorectal cancer found that the presence of KRAS mutation predicted lack of response to treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (e.g., panitumumab or cetuximab), whether as stand-alone therapy or in combination with chemotherapy (Linardou, et al., 2008).  This analysis also provided empirical evidence that k-RAS mutations are highly specific negative predictors of response (de-novo resistance) to single-agent EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer; and similarly to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA, 2008) Technology Evaluation Center Medical Advisory Panel concluded that use of KRAS mutation analysis meets TEC criteria to predict non-response to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab to treat metastatic colorectal cancer. The TEC assessment found that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that patients with mutated KRAS tumors in the setting of metastatic colorectal cancer do not respond to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy. The assessment explained that the data show that the clinical benefit of using EGFR inhibitors in treating metastatic colorectal cancer, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatment regimens, is not seen in patients with KRAS-mutated tumors.  The assessment found: "This data supports knowing a patient's tumor mutation status before consideration of use of an EGFR inhibitor in the treatment regimen.  Identifying patients whose tumors express mutated KRAS will avoid exposing patients to ineffective drugs, avoid exposure to unnecessary drug toxicities, and expedite the use of the best available alternative therapy."

Colorectal cancer guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2010) recommend consideration of reflex BRAF testing in patients with wild type KRAS. The NCCN guidelines explain that several small studies suggest that patients with wild-type KRAS and a BRAF mutation are unlikely to respond to anti-EGFR therapies such as cetuximab and panitumumab. The guidelines explain that patients with a known BRAF mutation are unlikely to respond to anti-EGFR antibodies, although the data are somewhat inconsistent. Studies demonstrate that in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, about 8 percent have mutations in the BRAF gene. Testing for the BRAF V600E mutation is performed by PCR amplification and direct DNA sequence analysis.

In the United States, bladder malignancy is the 4th commonest cancer in men and the 8th commonest in women. Patients usually present with urinary tract symptoms (e.g., gross or microscopic hematuria or irritative voiding symptoms such as frequency, dysuria, and urgency). Evaluations of these patients usually entail voided-urine cytology, cystoscopy, and upper urinary tract imaging such as intravenous pyelography, renal sonography, or retrograde pyelography. Most newly diagnosed bladder cancers are superficial (i.e., not invading beyond the lamina propria on histological examination), and are known as transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). These superficial bladder cancers are usually managed by transurethral resection. However, the literature shows that approximately 50 - 75% of treated TCC recur. Furthermore, 10 – 15% of TCC progress to muscle-invasive bladder cancer. According to the literature, the prevalence of recurrence after initial treatment as well as the natural history of TCC necessitates long-term follow-up. Following treatment, accepted guidelines provide that patients who have previously been diagnosed with TCC should usually undergo urine cytology/cystoscopy every 3 months in the 1st year, every 6 months in the 2nd year, and once-yearly afterwards.

Currently, urine cytology with confirmatory cystoscopy represents the cornerstone for the identification of bladder tumors. However, the subjectivity and low sensitivity of cytology led to the development of several urine-based tests as adjuncts to cytology/cystoscopy for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with TCC. These tests include the BTA Stat test (Bard Diagnostic, Redmond, WA), the NMP22 test (Matritech, Newton, MA), the Aura-Tek FDP test (PerImmune, Rockville, MD), and the Vysis UroVysion FISH Test (Vysis, Inc., Downers Grove, IL). They are usually objective, qualitative (BTA Stat and Aura-Tek FDP), or quantitative (NMP22, UroVysion), and have higher sensitivity than cytology, but some have lower specificity. So far, no single bladder tumor marker has emerged as the generally accepted test of choice, and none has been established as a screening tool for bladder malignancy.

Although urine cytology has been shown to be less accurate than urinary biomarker tests, familiarity with the method as well as ease of performance justify the continued routine use of the former by primary care physicians, especially in patients who have no history of bladder malignancy. The urine-based biomarker tests have been shown to be accurate in detecting low-grade bladder tumors. In particular, these tests may be of help in deciding the need for further diagnostic assessment of patients with a history of bladder cancer and negative results on urine cytology. For example, elevated levels of urinary bladder tumor markers in patients with a history of TCC may warrant earlier, rather than delayed, cystoscopic examination. On the other hand, consideration may be given to lengthening the intervals between cystoscopic investigations when values of these tumor markers are normal.

In summary, urine-based bladder tumor marker tests have been shown to be useful as an adjunct to urine cytology and cystoscopy in monitoring for recurrences of bladder cancer, but according to the available literature should not be used as a screening tool for bladder malignancy.  The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF, 2004) has concluded that the potential harms of screening for bladder cancer using available tests, such as microscopic urinalysis, urine dipstick, urine cytology, or such new tests as bladder tumor antigen (BTA) or nuclear matrix protein (NMP22) immunoassay, outweigh any potential benefits.

Svatek et al (2008) examined the role of urinary cathepsin B and L in the detection of bladder urothelial cell carcinoma.  These investigators concluded that urinary cathepsin L is an independent predictor of bladder cancer presence and invasiveness in patients with a history of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.  They stated that further evaluation of this marker is necessary before its use as an adjunct to cystoscopy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.

Oncotype Dx (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA) is a diagnostic laboratory-developed assay that quantifies the likelihood of breast cancer recurrence in women with newly diagnosed, stage I or II, node negative, estrogen receptor positive breast cancer, who will be treated with tamoxifen.  The assay analyzes the expression of a panel of 21 genes, and is intended for use in conjunction with other conventional methods of breast cancer analysis.  Together with staging, grading, and other tumor marker analyses, Oncotype Dx is intended to provide greater insight into the likelihood of systemic disease recurrence.  Clinical studies have evaluated the prognostic significance of the Oncotype Dx multigene assay in breast cancer (Paik, et al., 2004; Esteva, et al., 2003). 

There currently is a lack of evidence from prospective clinical studies of the impact of this test on the management of women with breast cancer demonstrating improvements in clinical outcomes,  Bast & Hortobagyi (2004) commented that “[b]efore use of the recurrence score [from the Oncotype Dx multigene assay] is applied to general patient care, however, additional studies are needed.” The National Cancer Institute is sponsoring a prospective, randomized controlled clinical study, the TAILORx study, using the Oncotype Dx assay to help identify a group of patients with a mid-range risk of recurrence to determine whether treating patients with hormonal therapy only is equivalent to treating them with hormonal therapy in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy.

However, there is indirect evidence of the clinical utility of the Oncotype Dx. Paik et al (2006) used banked tumor samples from previous clinical studies of tamoxifen and adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer to assess the performance of the Oncotype Dx multigene assay in predicting response to adjuvant chemotherapy. These investigators examined tumor samples from subjects enrolled in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B20 trial to determine whether there is a correlation between the recurrence score (RS) determined by Oncotype Dx in tumor samples and subsequent response to adjuvant chemotherapy. A total of 651 patients were assessable (227 randomly assigned to tamoxifen and 424 randomly assigned to tamoxifen plus chemotherapy). The test for interaction between chemotherapy treatment and RS was statistically significant (p = 0.038). Patients with high-RS (RS greater than or equal to 31) tumors (ie, high risk of recurrence) had a large benefit from chemotherapy (relative risk, 0.26; 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.53; absolute decrease in 10-year distant recurrence rate: mean, 27.6%; standard error, 8.0%). Patients with low-RS (less than 18) tumors derived minimal, if any, benefit from chemotherapy treatment (relative risk, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 3.78; absolute decrease in distant recurrence rate at 10 years: mean, -1.1%; standard error, 2.2%). The investigators found that patients with intermediate-RS tumors did not appear to have a large benefit, but the investigators concluded that the uncertainty in the estimate cannot exclude a clinically important benefit.

One limitation of the study by Paik et al (2006) is that the NASBP B20 trial was conducted before the advent of important advances in breast cancer chemotherapy, including the introduction of trastuzumab (Herceptin), which has been demonstrated to improve overall and disease-free survival in breast cancer patients with HER2 positive tumors. Current guidelines recommend the use of trastuzumab adjuvant chemotherapy in women with metastatic HER2 positive breast cancer, and women with HER2 positive nonmetastatic breast cancers 1 cm or more in diameter. Thus, the Oncotype Dx score would not influence the decision to use adjuvant trastuzumab in women with HER2 positive tumors 1 cm or more in diameter.

Commenting on an early report of this study by Paik et al, of the Oncotype Dx presented in abstract form, the BlueCross BlueShield Association Technology Evaluation Center assessment stated that “additional studies in different populations are needed to confirm whether risk prediction is sufficiently accurate for physicians and patients to choose with confidence whether to withhold adjuvant chemotherapy.”

The selection criteria for the TailorRx prospective trial of OncotypeDx state that candidates should have negative axillary nodes as determined by a sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or axillary dissection as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 6th Edition Staging System (NCI, 2009). The AJCC 6th Edition criteria redefined isolated tumor cells as node negative (the prior version of the criteria, AJCC 5th Edition, classified isolated tumor cells as node positive). "Isolated tumor cells (single cells or cell deposits) will now be defined as tumor cell deposits no larger than 0.2 mm in diameter that may or may not (but usually do not) show histologic evidence of malignant activity. Pending further information, isolated tumor cells will be classified as node-negative, because it is believed that the unknown benefits of providing treatment for these small lesions would not outweigh the morbidity caused by the treatment itself." (Singletary, et al., 2002). However, the banked tumor samples used in the study by Paik, et al. (2006) to validate the OncotypeDx were classified based on AJCC 5th Ed. criteria. In addition, there is new evidence demonstrating that women with isolated tumor cells are at a significantly increased risk of breast cancer. Investigators from the Netherlands found an association between isolated tumor cells and micrometastases in regional lymph nodes and clinical outcome of breast cancer (de Boer, et al., 2009). These investigators identified all patients in the Netherlands who underwent a sentinel-node biopsy for breast cancer before 2006 and had breast cancer with favorable primary-tumor characteristics and isolated tumor cells or micrometastases in the regional lymph nodes. Patients with node-negative disease were randomly selected from the years 2000 and 2001. The primary end point was disease-free survival. The investigators identified 856 patients with node-negative disease who had not received systemic adjuvant therapy (the node-negative, no-adjuvant-therapy cohort), 856 patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases who had not received systemic adjuvant therapy (the node-positive, no-adjuvant-therapy cohort), and 995 patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases who had received such treatment (the node-positive, adjuvant-therapy cohort). The median follow-up was 5.1 years. The adjusted hazard ratio for disease events among patients with isolated tumor cells who did not receive systemic therapy, as compared with women with node-negative disease, was 1.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.94); among patients with micrometastases, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.15 to 2.13). Among patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.73) in the node-positive, adjuvant-therapy cohort, as compared with the node-positive, no-adjuvant-therapy cohort. The investigators concluded that isolated tumor cells or micrometastases in regional lymph nodes were associated with a reduced 5-year rate of disease-free survival among women with favorable early-stage breast cancer who did not receive adjuvant therapy. In patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases who received adjuvant therapy, disease-free survival was improved.

The Oncotype Dx has also been promoted for use in women with node-positive, ER-positive breast cancer. An assessment by the BlueCross BlueShield Association (2010) concluded that it has not yet been demonstrated whether use of the Oncotype Dx for selecting adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with lymph-node-positive breast cancer improves health outcomes. The report explained that the evidence for not selecting chemotherapy for women with low RS values is based on low event rates and wide confidence intervals that include the possibility of benefit from chemotherapy.  Because the data allow for a possible benefit of chemotherapy in patients with low RS results, it is unknown if health outcomes would be improved, the same, or worse, if chemotherapy was withheld in these women. The report stated that, due to the lack of clear and sufficient information, there is a need for a second, confirmatory study.  The report stated that the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center will conduct a nationwide, NCI-sponsored, Phase III clinical trial to determine the predictive ability of the Oncotype Dx to identify which patients with lymph-node-positive breast cancer will benefit from chemotherapy.

Acceptance of 21-gene recurrence score assays as tools for clinical decision making in women or men with early stage breast cancer is controversial due to the lack of prospective validation studies, nevertheless, 2007 guidelines from an expert panel convened by ASCO on tumor markers in breast cancer concluded that multiparameter gene expression analysis (i.e., Oncotype Dx assay) can be used to predict the risk of recurrence in women with newly diagnosed, node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer.  Although it is reasonable to consider the use of a 21-gene recurrence score assay in males, none of the data generated to date have been in men with breast cancer (Gradishar, 2010). 

A 2009 abstract that looked at cases of male breast cancer (BC) with Oncotype Dx, concluded, “This large genomic study of male BC reveals a heterogeneous biology as measured by the standardized quantitative oncotype Dx breast cancer assay, similar to that observed in female BC.  Some differences, which may reflect the differences in hormone biology between males and females, were noted and deserve further study.” (Shak et al, 2009).

The Oncotype Dx has also been promoted for use in colorectal cancer. However, there is a lack of evidence establishing the clinical utility of this test in colorectal cancer.

The results of the Quick and Simple and Reliable Study (QUASAR) were published by Gray et al (2011).  The purpose of the QUASAR study was develop quantitative gene expression assays to assess recurrence risk and benefits from chemotherapy in patients with stage II colon cancer.  Recurrence score (RS) and treatment score (TS) were calculated from gene expression levels of 13 cancer-related genes and from five reference genes.  The results of the study showed risk of recurrence to be significantly associated with RS (95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.74; p = 0.004).  Recurrence risks at 3 years were 12%, 18%, and 22% for predefined low, intermediate, and high recurrence risk groups, respectively.  Continuous RS was associated with risk of recurrence (p=0.006), but there was no trend for increased benefit from chemotherapy at higher TS (p=0.95).  The continuous 12-gene RS has been validated in a prospective study for assessment of recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer after surgery.  RS was also found to provide prognostic value that complements T stage and mismatch repair.

In February 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Mammaprint (Agendia,  Amsterdam), a DNA microarray-based test used to predict whether women with early breast cancer might face the disease again. The test measures the activity of 70 genes, providing information about the likelihood that cancer will recur. It measures each of these genes in a sample of a woman's breast-cancer tumor and then uses a specific formula to produce a score that determines if the patient is deemed low-risk or high-risk for metastasis. In clinical trials, 1 in 4 women found to be at high risk by Mammaprint had recurrence of their cancer within 5 years. However, there are questions regarding the accuracy of this test. The positive predictive values at 5 and 10 years were 23% and 29%, respectively, while the corresponding negative predictive values were 95% and 90%, respectively.

Mammaprint was tested on 307 patients under the age of 61 years who underwent surgery for stage I or stage II breast cancer, and who have tumor size equal to or less than 5 cm, and lymph node-negative. The study found that Mammaprint more than doubled physicians' ability to predict breast cancer recurrence. Furthermore, a major clinical study is now underway to determine if the test really helps patients avoid needless chemotherapy. The European study will recruit 6,000 patients with early-stage breast cancer.

In reviewing gene expression profiling as a guide for the management of early stage breast cancer, the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF, 2007) stated that the Oncotype Dx recurrence score meets CTAF Technology Assessment Criteria 1 through 5 for safety, effectiveness and improvement in health outcomes when used with other tools to inform the decision to use chemotherapy in patients recently diagnosed with invasive breast cancer meeting the following criteria:

  • Estrogen or progesterone receptor positive
  • Lymph node negative
  • Tumor size less than 5 cm.

On the other hand, the CTAF stated that the use of other forms of gene expression profiling, including the 70-gene prognostic signature (Mammaprint), do not meet CTAF Technology Assessment Criteria 3 through 5 for safety, effectiveness and improvement in health outcomes. 

More recently, the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) reassessed the Mammaprint, and concluded that it did not meet CTAF criteria (Tice, 2010). The report concluded that "it remains unclear how the 70-gene prognostic signature should be used in managing patients with early stage breast cancer." The report noted that a large, randomized clinical trial (MINDACT) enrolling 6000 patients in Europe will test the hypothesis that use of the 70-gene prognostic score can improve outcomes for women with early stage breast cancer.

Other technology assessments (e.g., CvZ, 2010; Smartt, 2009) and guidelines (e.g., Harris, et al., 2007; NCCN, 2011) have also found insufficient evidence for use of the Mammaprint. ASCO's 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting stated that the use of CBCs, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, or tumor markers (CEA, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine breast cancer follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination. It stated that careful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are appropriate for detecting breast cancer recurrence. Currently, there is a lack of evidence that the use of Mammaprint would influence the decisions that women and their physicians make with regard to adjuvant therapy. The clinical value of this test has yet to be established.

A report prepared by the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group evaluated the evidence for three gene expression assays on the market; Oncotype Dx, MammaPrint and the Breast Cancer Profiling (BCP or H/I ratio) test, and for gene expression signatures underlying the assays. The report found that, for clinical validity, studies differed according to whether they examined the actual test that is currently being offered to patients or the underlying gene signature. The report found that almost all of the Oncotype Dx evidence was for the marketed test, the strongest validation study being from one arm of a randomized controlled trial (NSABP-14) with a clinically homogeneous population. This study showed that the test, added in a clinically meaningful manner to standard prognostic indices. The MammaPrint signature and test itself was examined in studies with clinically heterogeneous populations (e.g., mix of ER positivity and tamoxifen treatment) and showed a clinically relevant separation of patients into risk categories, but it was not clear exactly how many predictions would be shifted across decision thresholds if this were used in combination with traditional indices.The BCP test itself was examined in one study, and the signature was tested in a variety of formulations in several studies. The report identified one randomized controlled trial that provided high quality retrospective evidence of the clinical utility of Oncotype Dx to predict chemotherapy treatment benefit, but evidence for clinical utility was not found for MammaPrint or the H/I ratio. The report concluded that Oncotype Dx is furthest along the validation pathway, with strong retrospective evidence that it predicts distant spread and chemotherapy benefit to a clinically relevant extent over standard predictors, in a well-defined clinical subgroup with clear treatment implications. The report concluded that the evidence for clinical implications of using MammaPrint was not as clear as with Oncotype Dx, and the ability to predict chemotherapy benefit does not yet exist. The report concluded that the H/I ratio test requires further validation. For all tests, the relationship of predicted to observed risk in different populations still needs further study, as does their incremental contribution, optimal implementation, and relevance to patients on current therapies.

The EGAPP Working Group (2009) reported that they found adequate evidence regarding the association of the Oncotype Dx Recurrence Score with disease recurrence and adequate evidence for response to chemotherapy. The EWG found adequate evidence to characterize the association of MammaPrint with future metastases, but inadequate evidence to assess the added value to standard risk stratification, and could not determine the population to which the test would best apply. The evidence was inadequate to characterize the clinical validity of the Quest H:I Test. The EGAPP Working Group reported that they found no evidence regarding the clinical utility of the MammaPrint and Quest H:I Ratio tests, and inadequate evidence regarding Oncotype Dx. The EGAPP Working Group noted that these technologies have potential for both benefit and harm.

The Rotterdam Signature 76-gene panel (Veridex, LLC) is a multivariate index assay that is intended to assist in assessing a patient’s risk of systemic recurrence of cancer following successful initial treatment of localized node-negative breast cancer with surgery and tamoxifen alone. This multigene assay is intended for use in lymph-node negative breast cancer patients. The Rotterdam Signature panel uses microarray processing to measure cellular concentrations of mRNA in fresh tissue samples. The Rotterdam Signature panel uses the Human Genome U133a GeneChip (Affymetrix, Inc.) to identify patients that have gene expression signatures associated with either a low or high risk of developing metastatic disease.  A multicenter study investigated the ability of the Rotterdam 76-gene signature to identify patients at risk of distant metastases within 5 and 10 years of first diagnosis, using frozen tissue samples from 180 patients with node-negative breast cancer who had not received systemic chemotherapy (Foekens, et al., 2006). The Rotterdam 76-gene signature correctly identified 27 out of 30 cases of relapse within 5 years (90% sensitivity) and 75 out of 150 patients who did not relapse (50% specificity). An earlier summary of the same study (Foekens, et al., 2005) reported a hazard ratio for distant metastasis-free survival comparing favorable versus unfavorable signature = 7.41 (95% confidence interval 2.63-20.9); p = 8.5 x 10-6). The hazard ratio of overall survival comparing favorable versus unfavorable signature = 5.45 (95% confidence interval 1.62-18.3); p = .002. There are no published studies that have assessed the clinical utility of the Rotterdam 76-gene signature by monitoring the long-term outcomes of the patients selected and not selected for chemotherapy on the basis of assay results.

The Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio (HOXB13:IL17BR, also known as H/I) (AviaraDx, Inc., Carlsbad, CA) is intended to predict the risk of disease recurrence in women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, lymph node-negative breast cancer. The Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio is based on the ratio of the expression of two genes: the homeobox gene-B13 (HOXB13) and the interleukin- 17B receptor gene (IL17BR). In breast cancers that are more likely to recur, the HOXB13 gene tends to be over-expressed, while the IL-17BR gene tends to be under-expressed. In an 852-patient retrospective study, Ma, et al. (2006) found that the HOXB13:IL17BR ratio (H:I expression ratio) independently predicted breast cancer recurrence in patients with ER-positive, lymph-node negative cancer. The H:I expression ratio was found to be predictive in patients who received tamoxifen therapy as well as in those who did not. Expression of HOXB13, IL17BR, CHDH, estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) were quantified by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 852 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded primary breast cancers from 566 untreated and 286 tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. Gene expression and clinical variables were analyzed for association with relapse-free survival (RFS) by Cox proportional hazards regression models. The investigators reported that, in the entire cohort, expression of HOXB13 was associated with shorter RFS (p = .008), and expression of IL17BR and CHDH was associated with longer RFS (p < .0001 for IL17BR and p = .0002 for CHDH). In ER-positive patients, the HOXB13:IL17BR index predicted clinical outcome independently of treatment, but more strongly in node-negative patients. In multivariate analysis of the ER-positive node-negative subgroup including age, PR status, tumor size, S phase fraction, and tamoxifen treatment, the two-gene index remained a significant predictor of RFS (hazard ratio = 3.9; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 10.3; p = .007). The clinical value of the Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio was also evaluated in a study by Goetz, et al. (2006). That study found that a high H:I expression ratio is associated with an increased rate of relapse and mortality in ER-positive, lymph node-negative cancer patients treated with surgery and tamoxifen. Goetz, et al. (2006) examined the association between the ratio of the HOXB13 to IL17BR expression and the clinical outcomes of relapse and survival in women with ER-positive breast cancer enrolled onto a North Central Cancer Treatment Group adjuvant tamoxifen trial (NCCTG 89-30-52). Tumor blocks were obtained from 211 of 256 eligible patients, and quantitative reverse transcription-PCR profiles for HOXB13 and IL-17BR were obtained from 206 patients.  In the node-positive cohort (n = 86), the HOXB13/IL-17BR ratio was not associated with relapse or survival. In contrast, in the node-negative cohort (n = 130), a high HOXB13/IL-17BR ratio was associated with significantly worse RFS [hazard ratio (HR), 1.98; p = 0.031], DFS (HR, 2.03; p = 0.015), and OS (HR, 2.4; p = 0.014), independent of standard prognostic markers.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (BCBSA, 2007) announced that its Medical Advisory Panel (MAP) concluded that the use of the Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio gene expression profiling does not meet the TEC criteria. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group is currently preparing an evaluation of the H:I ratio test.

In a systematic review on gene expression profiling assays in early-stage breast cancer, Marchionni, et al. (2008) summarized evidence on the validity and utility of 3 gene expression-based prognostic breast cancer tests: Oncotype Dx, MammaPrint, and H/I.  The authors concluded that gene expression technologies show great promise to improve predictions of prognosis and treatment benefit for women with early-stage breast cancer.  However, more information is needed on the extent of improvement in prediction, characteristics of women in whom the tests should be used, and how best to incorporate test results into decision making about breast cancer treatment. 

Guidelines from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Harris, et al., 2007) found that, in newly diagnosed patients with node-negative, estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, the Oncotype Dx assay can be used to predict the risk of recurrence in patients treated with tamoxifen. The ASCO guidelines concluded that Oncotype Dx may be used to identify patients who are predicted to obtain the most therapeutic benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen and may not require adjuvant chemotherapy. The ASCO guidelines found, in addition, that patients with high recurrence scores appear to achieve relatively more benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy than from tamoxifen. ASCO found that there are insufficient data at present to comment on whether these conclusions generalize to hormonal therapies other than tamoxifen, or whether this assay applies to other chemotherapy regimens.  Guidelines from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Harris, et al., 2007) concluded that the precise clinical utility and appropriate application for other multiparameter assays, such as the MammaPrint assay, the Rotterdam Signature, and the Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio are under investigation. ASCO also found insufficient data to recommend use of proteomic patterns for management of patients with breast cancer. 

TargetPrint is a microarray-based gene expression test which offers a quantitative assessment of the patient’s level of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2/neu overexpression in breast cancer. The manufacturer states that TargetPrint is offered in conjunction with MammaPrint gene expression profiling to provide the physician an even more complete basis for treatment decisions. The manufacturer states that, as compared to Immunohistochemistry (IHC), TargetPrint provides additional information. Whereas IHC provides a semi-quantitative positive or negative result, the gene expression result provided by TargetPrint provides data on the absolute level of ER, PR and HER2 gene expression. Published information on the TargetPrint is limited to studies examining its correlation with measurements of ER, PR, and HER2 receptors (Gunven et al, 2011; Gevensleben et al, 2010; Roepman et al, 2009).  There is a lack of evidence from published prospective clinical studies that demonstrates that quantification of ER, PR, and HER2 gene expression by TargetPrint alters management such that clinical outcomes are improved.

The Mammostrat is a prognostic immunohistochemistry (IHC) test that measures the risk of breast cancer recurrence in post-menopausal, node-negative, estrogen receptor-expressing breast cancer patients who will receive hormonal therapy and are considering adjuvant chemotherapy. The test analyzes five monoclonal antibody biomarkers and applies a diagnostic algorithm to assess whether patients have a high, moderate, or low risk of recurrence after they have had their breast cancer tumor surgically removed and have been treated with tamoxifen.

Bartlett et al (2010) tested the efficacy of the Mammostrat in a mixed population of cases treated in a single center with breast-conserving surgery and long-term follow-up.  Tissue microarrays from a consecutive series of 1,812 women managed by wide local excision and post-operative radiotherapy were collected.  Of 1,390 cases stained, 197 received no adjuvant hormonal or chemotherapy, 1,044 received tamoxifen only, and 149 received a combination of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy.  Median age at diagnosis was 57 years, 71% were post-menopausal, 23.9% were node-positive and median tumor size was 1.5 cm.  Samples were stained using triplicate 0.6 mm2 tissue microarray cores, and positivity for p53, HTF9C, CEACAM5, NDRG1 and SLC7A5 was assessed.  Each case was assigned a Mammostrat risk score, and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by marker positivity and risk score.  Increased Mammostrat scores were significantly associated with reduced DRFS, RFS and OS in ER-positive breast cancer (p < 0.00001).  In multivariate analyses the risk score was independent of conventional risk factors for DRFS, RFS and OS (p < 0.05).  In node-negative, tamoxifen-treated patients, 10-year recurrence rates were 7.6 +/- 1.5% in the low-risk group versus 20.0 +/- 4.4% in the high-risk group.  Further, exploratory analyses revealed associations with outcome in both ER-negative and un-treated patients.  The authors concluded that the Mammostrat can act as an independent prognostic tool for ER-positive, tamoxifen-treated breast cancer and the results of the study revealed a possible association with outcome regardless of node status and ER-negative tumors.

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the Mammostrat test is better than conventional risk assessment tools in predicting the recurrence of breast cancer.  Furthermore, neither NCCN or ASCO have incorporated the test into their guidelines as a diagnostic tool.

The OvaCheck™ (Correlogic Systems, Inc.) is a proteomic analysis of blood for the early detection of ovarian cancer.  A similar test, which involved a different molecular pattern, was the subject of a 2002 study of 216 women with ovarian cancer.  That study showed that the proteomic test had a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 95%, with a positive predictive value of 94% (Petricoin, et al., 2002).  While this study showed that a proteomic test detected ovarian cancers even where CA-125 levels were normal, this study included only women who had been detected with ovarian cancer by other means.  There is inadequate evidence that this test will be effective for screening women with undetected ovarian cancer. 

In addition, there is concern, given the low prevalence of ovarian cancer, that this test is not sufficiently specific for use in screening.  The National Cancer Institute explains that even an ovarian cancer test with a specificity of 99% means that 1% of those who did not have cancer would test positive, which is “far too high a rate for commercial use” (NCI, 2004). For a rare disease such as ovarian cancer, which has an approximate prevalence of 1 in 2,500 in the general population, a 99% specificity and 100% sensitivity translates into 25 women falsely identified for every one true cancer found.

The OvaCheck™ test employs electrospray ionization (ESI) type of mass spectrometry using highly diluted denatured blood samples.  This method differs from a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization (MALDI) analysis of undiluted native sera samples that was used in the Lancet study and is currently under investigation by the National Cancer Institute and Food and Drug Administration (NCI, 2004).  The NCI notes that “[t]he class of molecules analyzed by these two approaches, and thus the molecules that constitute the diagnostic patterns, would be expected to be entirely different.” Neither the NCI nor FDA has been involved in the design or validation of OvaCheck™ methodology. 

As the Ovacheck test is performed as a “home-brewed” test by two national laboratories instead of as a commercially available kit, FDA approval of the OvaCheck test may not be required.  The Society for Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO, 2004) has reviewed the literature regarding OvaCheck and concluded that “more research is needed to validate the test’s effectiveness before offering it to the public.”  Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2004) has stated that "more research is needed to validate the test's effectiveness before recommending it to the public."

An assessment of the Ovacheck test and other genomic tests for ovarian cancer prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality by the Duke Evidence-Based Practice Center (Myers, et al., 2006) reached the following conclusions:  "Genomic test sensitivity/specificity estimates are limited by small sample sizes, spectrum bias, and unrealistically large prevalences of ovarian cancer; in particular, estimates of positive predictive values derived from most of the studies are substantially higher than would be expected in most screening or diagnostic settings. We found no evidence relevant to the question of the impact of genomic tests on health outcomes in asymptomatic women. Although there is a relatively large literature on the association of test results and various clinical outcomes, the clinical utility of changing management based on these results has not been evaluated."  Specifically regarding Ovacheck and other proteomic tests for ovarian cancer, the assessment found that, "[a] lthough all studies reported good discrimination for the particular protein profile studied, there were several recurrent issues that limit the ability to draw inferences about potential clinical applicability," in particular technical issues with the assays themselves, variations in analytic methods used among studies, and an unrealistically high prevalence of ovarian cancer in the datasets compared to what would be expected in a normal screening population.

OvaSure is an ovarian cancer screening test that entails the use of 6 biomarkers (leptin, prolactin, osteopontin, insulin-like growth factor II, macrophage inhibitory factor and CA-125) to assess the presence of early stage ovarian cancer in high-risk women.  Visintin et al (2008) characterized and validated the OvaSure for discriminating between disease-free and ovarian cancer patients.  These researchers analyzed 362 healthy controls and 156 newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients.  Concentrations of leptin, prolactin, osteopontin, insulin-like growth factor II, macrophage inhibitory factor, and CA-125 were determined using a multiplex, bead-based, immunoassay system.  All 6 markers were evaluated in a training set (181 samples from the control group and 113 samples from ovarian cancer patients) and a test set (181 sample control group and 43 ovarian cancer).  Multiplex and ELISA exhibited the same pattern of expression for all the biomarkers.  None of the biomarkers by themselves was good enough to differentiate healthy versus cancer cells.  However, the combination of the 6 markers provided a better differentiation than CA-125.  Four models with less than 2% classification error in training sets all had significant improvement (sensitivity 84 % to 98% at specificity 95%) over CA-125 (sensitivity 72% at specificity 95%) in the test set.  The chosen model correctly classified 221 out of 224 specimens in the test set, with a classification accuracy of 98.7%.  The authors noted that the OvaSure is the first blood biomarker test with a sensitivity of 95.3% and a specificity of 99.4% for the detection of ovarian cancer.  Six markers provided a significant improvement over CA-125 alone for ovarian cancer detection.  Validation was performed with a blinded cohort.  They stated that this novel multiplex platform has the potential for efficient screening in patients who are at high risk for ovarian cancer.

However, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO, 2008) released an opinion regarding OvaSure, which stated that additional research is needed before the test should be offered to women outside the context of a research study.  Moreover, SGO stated that it will "await the results of further clinical validation of OvaSure with great interest".

Furthermore, according to the FDA’s web site, the FDA sent the Laboratory Corporation of America a warning letter stating that it is illegally marketing OvaSure to detect ovarian cancer.  According to the FDA warning letter, their review indicates that this product is a device under section 201(h) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA or Act), 21 U.S.C. 321(h), because it is intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, treatment, prevention, or mitigation of disease. The Act requires that manufacturers of devices that are not exempt obtain marketing approval or clearance for their products from the FDA before they may offer them for sale. This helps protect the public health by ensuring that new devices are shown to be both safe and effective or substantially equivalent to other devices already legally marketed in this country for which approval is not required.  According to the FDA warning letter, no such determination has been made for OvaSure.

Thrombospondin-1 (THBS-1), an angiogenesis inhibitor, has been identified as a potential monitoring marker in gynecologic malignancies.  In a randomized phase III study on the co-expression of angiogenic markers and their associations with prognosis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, Secord, et al. (2007) reported that high THBS-1 may be an independent predictor of worse progression-free and overall survival in women with advanced-stage EOC.  However, the authors stated, "A larger prospective study is warranted for validation of these findings."

Guanyl cyclase C (GCC) is a receptor protein normally expressed in high concentrations on the luminal surface of the gastrointestinal epithelium.  Expression of GCC persists on mucosal cells that have undergone malignant transformation.  Thus, GCC has potential use as a marker to determine spread of colorectal cancer to lymph nodes.  A retrospective study of 21 patients post surgical resection of colorectal cancer found that all 11 of 21 patients who were free of cancer for 5 years or more were negative for GCC in lymph nodes, whereas all 10 of 21 patients whose cancer returned within 3 years of surgery were positive for GCC.  However, the value of the GCC marker test in the management of colorectal cancer needs to be evaluated in prospective clinical outcome studies.  A large prospective study is currently being conducted to compare standard histological examination of lymph nodes to the GCC marker test.

Thymidylate synthase is a DNA synthesis related gene.  According to Compton (2008), the prognostic value of this promising and potentially clinically applicable molecular marker has been studied in colorectal cancer.  Compton found that the independent influence of this marker on prognosis remains unproven.  Compton explained that "[v]ariability in assay methodology, conflicting results from various studies examining the same factor, and the prevalence of multiple small studies that lack statistically robust, multivariate analyses all contribute to the lack of conclusive data."  Compton concluded that before this marker can be incorporated into clinically meaningful prognostic stratification systems, more studies are required using multivariate analysis, well-characterized patient populations, reproducible and current methodology, and standardized reagents.

In a special report on pharmacogenomics of cancer, the BlueCross and BlueShield Association's Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) (2007) described the results of a meta-analysis on thymidylate synthase protein expression and survival in colorectal cancer that stated low thymidylate synthase expression was significantly associated with better survival, but heterogeneity and possible bias prevented firm conclusions.

Current guidelines from the American Society for Colon and Rectal Surgeons (2004) stated: "In the future, DNA analysis and the intratumoral expression of specific chemical substances", including thymidylate synthase, "may be used routinely to further assess prognosis or response to therapy."  In addition, Shankaran, et al. (2008) stated in a review on the role of molecular markers in predicting response to therapy in patients with colorectal cancer, "Although to date no molecular characteristics have emerged as consistent predictors of response to therapy, retrospective studies have investigated the role of a variety of biomarkers, including microsatellite instability, loss of heterozygosity of 18q, type II transforming growth factor beta receptor, thymidylate synthase, epidermal growth factor receptor, and Kirsten-ras (KRAS)."

Tumour angiogenesis is associated with invasiveness and the metastatic potential of various cancers.  Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), the most potent and specific angiogenic factor identified to date, regulates normal and pathologic angiogenesis.  An evidence report from Cancer Care Ontario (Welch, et al., 2008) on the use of the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab in colorectal cancer explained that the increased expression of VEGF has been correlated with metastasis, recurrence, and poor prognosis in many cancers, including colorectal cancer. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2007) explained that bevacizumab (Avastin) is a recombinant humanised monoclonal IgG1 antibody that acts as an angiogenesis inhibitor.  It targets the biological activity of VEGF, which stimulates new blood vessel formation in the tumour.  However, neither the FDA approved labeling of bevacizumab or evidence-based guidelines recommend measurement of VEGF to diagnose colorectal cancer or to select patients for treatment.  In a special report on pharmacogenomics of cancer, the BlueCross and BlueShield Association's Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) (2007) stated that pre-treatment VEGF levels do not appear to be predictive of response to anti-angiogenic therapy.

PCA3 (DD3) is a gene that has been found to be highly overexpressed in prostate cancer.  This gene has been investigated as a potential diagnostic marker for prostate cancer.  However, there are no published clinical outcome studies of the effectiveness of the PCA3 gene in screening, diagnosis or management of prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) (Progensa, Gene-Probe, Inc.) encodes a prostate-specific mRNA. It is one of the most prostate cancer-specific genes identified, with over-expression in about 95% of cancers tested. The PCA3 urine assay is an amplified nucleic acid assay, which uses transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) to quantify PCA3 and PSA mRNA in prostate cells found in urine samples. The PCA3 score is calculated as the ratio between PCA3 and PSA mRNA. The main target population of this non-invasive test is men with raised PSA but a negative prostate biopsy. Other target groups include men with a slightly raised PSA, as well as men with signs and symptoms suggestive of prostate cancer.

van Gils and colleagues (2007) stated that the recently discovered PCA3 is a promising prostate cancer marker. These investigators performed a multi-center study to validate the diagnostic performance of the PCA3 urine test established in an earlier single-institution study. The first voided urine after DRE was collected from a total of 583 men with serum PSA levels between 3 and 15 ng/ml who were to undergo prostate biopsies. These researchers determined the PCA3 score in these samples and correlated the results with the results of the prostate biopsies. A total of 534 men (92%) had an informative sample. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, a measure of the diagnostic accuracy of a test, was 0.66 for the PCA3 urine test and 0.57 for serum PSA. The sensitivity for the PCA3 urine test was 65%, the specificity was 66% (versus 47% for serum PSA), and the negative predictive value was 80%. The authors concluded that the findings of this multi-center study validated the diagnostic performance of the PCA3 urine test in the largest group studied thus far using a PCA3 gene-based test.

Marks and associates (2007) examined the potential utility of the investigational PCA3 urine assay to predict the repeat biopsy outcome. Urine was collected after DRE (3 strokes per lobe) from 233 men with serum PSA levels persistently 2.5 ng/ml or greater and at least one previous negative biopsy. The PCA3 scores were determined using a highly sensitive quantitative assay with TMA. The ability of the PCA3 score to predict the biopsy outcome was assessed and compared with the serum PSA levels. The RNA yield was adequate for analysis in the urine samples from 226 of 233 men (i.e., the informative specimen rate was 97%). Repeat biopsy revealed prostate cancer in 60 (27%) of the 226 remaining subjects. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.68 for the PCA3 score. In contrast, the area under the curve for serum PSA was 0.52. Using a PCA3 score cutoff of 35, the assay sensitivity was 58% and specificity 72%, with an odds ratio of 3.6. At PCA3 scores of less than 5, only 12% of men had prostate cancer on repeat biopsy; at PCA3 scores of greater than 100, the risk of positive biopsy was 50%. The authors concluded that in men undergoing repeat prostate biopsy to rule out cancer, the urinary PCA3 score was superior to serum PSA determination for predicting the biopsy outcome. The high specificity and informative rate suggest that the PCA3 assay could have an important role in prostate cancer diagnosis.

Groskopf et al (2007) reported that the PCA3 score is independent of prostate volume and was highly correlated with the risk of positive biopsy. The PCA3 test was performed on 529 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. Overall, the PCA3 score had a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of 74%. A PCA3 score of less than 5 was associated with a 14% risk of positive biopsy, while a PCA3 score of greater than 100 was associated with a 69% risk of positive biopsy.

Haese et al (2007) presented preliminary results from a European multicenter study of PCA3. Enrolled patients had a PSA level of less than or equal to 2.5 ng/mL, had 1 or 2 previous negative biopsies, and were scheduled for repeat biopsy. The specificity of the PCA3 score (cutoff 35) was found to be 78%, and the sensitivity was 67%. Patients with a PCA3 score of greater than or equal to 35 had a 33% probability of a positive repeat biopsy, compared to a 6% probability for those with a PCA3 score of less than 35.

An assessment by the BlueCross BlueShield Association Technology Evaluation Center (BCBSA, 2008) found that, in general, PCA3 assay results to date are preliminary; interpretation of results has not been standardized and clinical utility studies of decision-making for initial biopsy, repeat biopsy or treatment have not been reported.

Tosoian et al (2010) evaluated the relationship between PCA3 and prostate biopsy results in men in a surveillance program. Urine specimens were obtained from 294 men with prostate cancer enrolled in the Johns Hopkins surveillance program. The follow-up protocol included semi-annual free and total PSA measurements, digital rectal examination and annual surveillance prostate biopsy. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between PCA3 results and progression on surveillance biopsy (defined as Gleason pattern 4 or 5, more than 2 positive biopsy cores or more than 50% involvement of any core with cancer). Patients with progression on biopsy (12.9%) had a mean PCA3 score similar to that of those without progression (60.0 versus 50.8, p = 0.131). Receiver operating characteristics analysis suggested that PCA3 alone could not be used to identify men with progression on biopsy (area under the curve = 0.589, 95% CI 0.496 to 0.683, p = 0.076). After adjustment for age and date of diagnosis PCA3 was not significantly associated with progression on biopsy (p = 0.15). The authors concluded that in men with low risk prostate cancer who were carefully selected for surveillance the PCA3 score was not significantly associated with short-term biopsy progression. They stated that further analysis is necessary to assess the usefulness of PCA3 in combination with other biomarkers or in selected subsets of patients undergoing surveillance.

While there are studies examining the positive and negative predictive values of the PCA3 urine assay, there is currently a lack of evidence of the effect of this test on management of individuals with or suspected of prostate cancer. The PCA3 urine assay shows promise as a prostate cancer diagnostic tool, however, more research is needed to ascertain the clinical value of this assay for screening and diagnostic purposes.

Donovan et al (2008) from Aureon, the manufacturer of Prostate Px, reported on the development and validation of their systems pathology model for predicting prostate cancer recurrence after prostatectomy. The clinical utility of defining high risk for failure after radical prostatectomy is to decide whether patients require closer follow-up than average or whether adjuvant radiotherapy, hormone therapy, or chemotherapy would be of benefit. In this analysis, the concordance index for the systems pathology approach used by Aureon was 0.83, but was only slightly better than a 10-variable model that used only the usual clinical parameters, with a concordance index of 0.80. The corresponding hazard ratios for clinical failure were 6.37 for the 10-variable clinical model, and 9.11 for the systems pathology approach. In an accompanying editorial, Klein, et al. (2009)  questioned the clinical significance of these differences. They noted that "[a]lthough the difference in concordance indices was statistically significant, the question is whether there is sufficient clinical relevance to justify the extra effort, expense, and clinical expertise needed for the systems approach ... In contemporary clinical practice, a patient with a hazard ratio of 6.37 generated by the model using easily derived, routinely reported clinical and pathological parameters is just as likely to be a candidate for closer monitoring or adjuvant therapy than one with a hazard ratio of 9.11 generated by the systems approach".

Sutcliffe et al (2009) provided an evidence-based perspective on the prognostic value of novel markers in localized prostate cancer and identified the best prognostic model including the 3 classical markers and investigated if models incorporating novel markers are better. Eight electronic bibliographic databases were searched. The reference lists of relevant articles were checked and various health services research-related resources consulted via the internet. The search was restricted to publications from 1970 onwards in the English language. Selected studies were assessed, data extracted using a standard template, and quality assessed using an adaptation of published criteria. Because of the heterogeneity regarding populations, outcomes and study type, meta-analyses were not undertaken and the results are presented in tabulated format with a narrative synthesis of the results. A total of 30 papers met the inclusion criteria, of which 28 reported on prognostic novel markers and 5 on prognostic models. A total of 21 novel markers were identified from the 28 novel marker studies. There was considerable variability in the results reported, the quality of the studies was generally poor and there was a shortage of studies in some categories. The marker with the strongest evidence for its prognostic significance was PSA velocity (or doubling time). There was a particularly strong association between PSA velocity and prostate cancer death in both clinical and pathological models. In the clinical model the hazard ratio for death from prostate cancer was 9.8 (95 % CI 2.8 to 34.3, p < 0.001) in men with an annual PSA velocity of more than 2 ng/ml versus an annual PSA velocity of 2 ng/ml or less; similarly, the hazard ratio was 12.8 (95 % CI 3.7 to 43.7, p < 0.001) in the pathological model. The quality of the prognostic model studies was adequate and overall better than the quality of the prognostic marker studies. Two issues were poorly dealt with in most or all of the prognostic model studies: (i) inclusion of established markers, and (ii) consideration of the possible biases from study attrition. Given the heterogeneity of the models, they can not be considered comparable. Only 2 models did not include a novel marker, and 1 of these included several demographical and co-morbidity variables to predict all-cause mortality. Only 2 models reported a measure of model performance, the C-statistic, and for neither was it calculated in an external data set. It was not possible to assess whether the models that included novel markers performed better than those without. This review highlighted the poor quality and heterogeneity of studies, which render much of the results inconclusive. It also pinpointed the small proportion of models reported in the literature that are based on patient cohorts with a mean or median follow-up of at least 5 years, thus making long-term predictions unreliable. Prostate-specific antigen velocity, however, stood out in terms of the strength of the evidence supporting its prognostic value and the relatively high hazard ratios. There is great interest in PSA velocity as a monitoring tool for active surveillance but there is as yet no consensus on how it should be used and, in particular, what threshold should indicate the need for radical treatment.

In an editorial on clinically relevant prognostic markers for prostate cancer, Gelmann and Henshall (2009) stated that "[u]ntil we have sufficiently discriminating markers to inform treatment decisions, the problem of whom to treat will continue to grow exponentially as the number of cases of screening-detected low-risk cancer increases".

The CellSearch™ Epithelial Cell Kit, along with the CellSpotter™ Analyzer (Veridex, LLC, Warren, NJ) is a device designed to automate the detection and enumeration of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) of epithelial origin (CD45-, EpCAM+, and cytokeratins 8, 18+ and/or 19+) in whole blood in patients with advanced breast cancer.  It is intended for use in adjunctively monitoring and predicting cancer disease progression and response to therapy. 

The CellSearch Epithelial Cell Kit received FDA 510(k) clearance on January 21, 2004.  The FDA concluded that the device is substantially equivalent to immunomagnetic circulating cancer cell selection and enumeration systems.  These devices consist of biological probes, fluorochromes and other reagents, preservation and preparation devices and semi-automated analytical instruments to select and count circulating cancer cells in a prepared sample of whole blood. 

The CellSearch Epithelial Cell Kit quantifies CTCs by marking cancerous cells with tiny, protein-coated magnetic balls in whole blood.  These cells are stained with fluorescent markers for identification and then dispensed into a cartridge for analysis where a strong magnetic field is applied to the mixture causing the magnetically marked cells to move to the cartridge surface.  The cartridge is then analyzed by the CellSpotter Analyzer.  A medical professional rechecks the CTCs and the CellSpotter Analyzer tallies the final CTC count. 

In a prospective, multicenter study, Cristofanilli et al (2004) used the CellSearch System on 177 patients with measurable metastatic breast cancer for levels of CTCs both before the patients started a new line of therapy and at follow-up.  The progression of the disease or the response to treatment was determined with the use of standard imaging studies at the participating centers every nine to twelve weeks.  Outcomes were assessed according to levels of CTCs at baseline, before the patients started a new therapy.  In the first test, patients with 5 or more CTCs per 7.5 ml of blood compared to a group with fewer than 5 CTCs had a shorter median progression-free survival (2.7 months vs. 7.0 months) and shorter overall survival (10.1 months vs. greater than 18 months).  At the follow-up visit, approximately three to four weeks after the initiation of therapy, the percentage of patients with more than 5 CTC was reduced from 49 percent to 30 percent, suggesting a benefit from therapy.  The difference in progression-free survival between the two groups remained consistent (2.1 months for women with 5 or more CTCs vs. 7 months for women with less than 5 CTCs).  Overall, survival in the women with more than 5 CTCs was 8.2 months compared to greater than 18 months in the cohort with less than 5 CTCs.  Cristofanilli concluded that the number of CTCs before treatment was an independent predictor of progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer.  However, Cristofanilli also concluded that the results may not be valid for patients who do not have measurable disease or for those starting a new regimen of hormone therapy, immunotherapy, or both.  He states, “The prognostic implications of an elevated level of circulating tumor cells for patients with metastatic disease who are starting a new treatment may be an opportunity to stratify these patients in investigational studies”.  Furthermore, the study did not address whether patients with an elevated number of circulating tumor cells might benefit from other therapies.  Thus, this minimally invasive assay requires further evaluation as a prognostic marker of disease progression and response to therapy. 

The clinical application of quantifying CTCs in the peripheral blood of breast cancer patients remains unclear.  Published data in the peer-reviewed medical literature are needed to determine how such measurements would guide treatment decisions and whether these decisions would result in beneficial patient outcomes (Kahn, et al., 2004; Abeloff, et al., 2004). An assessment of CellSearch by AETSA (2006) concluded "In the current stage of development of this technology, there is no evidence that it provides any advantage over existing technology for CTC identification or indeed any additional clinical use." Guidelines from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Harris, et al., 2007) found: "The measurement of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) should not be used to make the diagnosis of breast cancer or to influence any treatment decisions in patients with breast cancer. Similarly, the use of the recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared test for CTC (CellSearch Assay) in patients with metastatic breast cancer cannot be recommended until further validation confirms the clinical value of this test."

Although studies relate circulating tumor cells to prognostic indicators (see, e.g., Cohen, et al., 2008; De Giorgi, et al., 2009), there are a lack of published prospective clinical studies demonstrating that measurement of CTCs alters management such that clinical outcomes are improved. Such clinical outcome studies are currently ongoing. Current guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) make no recommendation for use of circulating tumor cells.

Estrogen and progestin receptors are important prognostic markers in breast cancer, and the higher the percentage of overall cells positive as well as the greater the intensity, the better the prognosis. Estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity in breast cancer cells is an indication the patient may be a good candidate for hormone therapy. HER-2/neu is an oncogene. Its gene product, a protein, is over-expressed in approximately 20 to 30% of breast cancers. The over-expressed protein is present in unusually high concentration on the surface of some malignant breast cancer cells, causing these cells to rapidly proliferate. It is important because these tumors are susceptible to treatment with Herceptin (trastuzumab), which specifically binds to this over-expressed protein. Herceptin blocks these protein receptors, inhibiting continued replication and tumor growth.

There are additional tests that may be used in breast cancer cases, such as DNA ploidy, Ki-67 or other proliferation markers. However, most authorities believe that HER-2/neu, estrogen and progesterone receptor status are the most important to evaluate first. The other tests do not have therapeutic implications and, when compared with grade and stage of the disease, are not independently significant with respect to prognosis.

Harris et al (2007) updated ASCO's recommendations for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast cancer. Thirteen categories of breast tumor markers were considered, 6 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, CEA, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, urokinase plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, and certain multi-parameter 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 (fragments or whole length), proteomics, certain multi-parameter assays, detection of bone marrow micrometastases, and circulating tumor cells (e.g., CellSearch assay). These guidelines found present data insufficient to recommend measurement of Ki67, cyclin D, cyclin E, p27, p21, thymidine kinase, topoisomerase II, or other markers of proliferation to assign patients to prognostic groups. The guidelines also found insufficient data to recommend assessment of bone marrow micrometastases for management of patients with breast cancer.

The PathFinderTG (RedPath Integrated Pathology, Pittsburgh, PA), also known as topographic genotyping, is described by the manufacturer as a quantitative genetic mutational analysis platform for resolving “indeterminate, atypical, suspicious, equivocal and non-diagnostic specimen” diagnoses from pathology specimens (RedPath, 2007). The manufacturer states that PathFinder TG "focuses on acquired mutational damage rather than inherited genetic predisposition for certain diseases, although there are certain NIH recommended inherited conditions for which we do test."  The manufacturer states that the temporal sequence of acquired mutational damage revealed by the PathFinderTG test is an earlier demonstration of tumor biological aggressiveness than current staging systems that rely on the depth of invasion already achieved by the tumor.  Available published evidence for topographic genotyping focuses on retrospective analyses of pathology specimens examining correlations of test results with tumor characteristics (e.g., Saad, et al., 2008; Lin, et al., 2008; Finkelstein, et al., 2003; Pollack, et al., 2001; Riberio, et al., 1998; Kounelis, et al., 1998; Finkelstein, et al., 1998; Holst, et al., 1998; Jones, et al., 1997; Holst, et al., 1997; Pricolo, et al., 1997; Przygodzki, et al., 1997; Finkelstein, et al., 1996; Kanbour-shakir, et al., 1996; Ribeiro, et al., 1996; Pryzgodzki, et al., 1996; Safatle-Ribeiro, et al., 1996; Papadaki, et al., 1996; Przygodzki, et al., 1996; Pricolo, et al., 1996; Finkelstein, et al., 1994). There are no prospective clinical outcome studies on the use of topographic genotyping in guiding patient management. Current evidence-based guidelines from leading medical professional organizations and public health agencies do not include recommendations for topographic genotyping. In a review on molecular analysis of pancreatic cyst fluid, Shen and colleagues (2009) stated that a large study with validation of PathFinderTG molecular testing of pancreatic fluid will be needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn.

A systematic evidence review of the PathFinderTG prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Trikalinos, et al., 2010) found that most studies on loss-of-heterozygosity based topographic genotyping with PathfinderTG were excluded because they only described the molecular profile of different tumors, without assessing the ability of the method to help make diagnosis, prognosis or treatment guidance. The review found no studies that directly measured whether using loss-of-heterozygosity based topographic genotyping with PathfinderTG improves patient-relevant clinical outcomes. The review reported that eligible studies on the diagnostic and prognostic ability of loss-of-heterozygosity based topographic genotyping with PathfinderTG were small in sample sizes and had overt methodological limitations. The review reported that important characteristics of their designs were not clearly reported. The report noted that loss-of-heterozygosity based topographic genotyping with PathfinderTG is claimed to be particularly useful in cases where conventional pathology is unable to provide a conclusive diagnosis. However, the included studies were not designed to address this question. Therefore, it is unclear if the findings of the reviewed studies are directly applicable to patients with the same cancers but with inconclusive diagnosis.

Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a biopsy-proven metastatic solid tumor with no primary tumor identified and represents approximately 2% to 4% of all cancer cases.  The diagnosis of CUP is made following inconclusive results from standard tests (e.g., biopsy, immunochemistry and other blood work, chest x-rays, and occult blood stool test).  The absence of a known primary tumor presents challenges to the selection of appropriate treatment strategies.  As a result, patients have a poor prognosis, and fewer than 25% survive 1 year from the time of diagnosis.  A variety of tissue-biopsy testing techniques currently are used to determine the origin of the CUP, including immunochemistry; histological examination of specimens stained with eosin and hematoxylin, and electron microscopy.  These techniques definitively identify the type of carcinoma in less than 20% to 30% of CUP.

Gene expression profiling is a technique used to identify the genetic makeup of a tissue sample by characterizing the patterns of mRNA transcribed, or "expressed", by its DNA.  Specific patterns of gene expression, reflected in unique configurations of mRNA, are associated with different tumor types.  By comparing the gene expression profile (GEP) of an unknown tumor to the profiles of known primary cancers ("referent" profiles), it may be possible to determine the type of tumor from which the CUP originated.

In July 2008, the FDA cleared for marketing the Pathwork Tissue of Origin test (Pathwork Diagnostics, Sunnyvale, CA), a gene expression profiling test that uses microarray processing to determine the type of cancer cells present in a tumor of unknown origin.  The test uses the PathChip (Affymetrix Inc., Santa Clara, CA), a custom-designed gene expression array, to measure the expression from 1,668 probe sets to quantify the similarity of tumor specimens to 15 common malignant tumor types, including: bladder, breast, colorectal, gastric, germ cell, hepatocellular, kidney, non-small cell lung, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, soft tissue sarcoma, and thyroid.  The degree of correspondence between the tissue sample's GEP and a referent profile is quantified and expressed as a probability-based score.

A multi-center, clinical validation study reported on comparisons of diagnoses based on GEP from 477 banked tissue samples of undifferentiated and poorly differentiated metastases versus standard of care pathology based diagnoses.  Comparison of the GEP based diagnoses versus pathology based diagnoses yielded an 89% agreement and the concurrence was greater than 92% for 8 out of 15 types of primary tumors.  The overall accuracy of the test was approximately 95% and 98% for positive and negative determinations, respectively (Monzon, et al., 2007).

Gene expression profiling is a promising technology in the management of CUP; however, there is insufficient evidence of its clinical utility compared to that achieved by expert pathologists using current standards of practice. A draft clinical guideline on metastatic malignant disease of unknown origin by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2010) recommends against using gene expression profiling (e.g., Pathwork TOT, CupPrint, Theros CancerTypeID, miRview Mets) to identify primary tumors in patients with CUP. The guideline explained that currently there is no evidence that gene-expression based profiling improves the management or changes the outcomes for patients with CUP. Guidelines on occult primary from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2010) state that, while gene expression profiling looks promising, "prospective clinical trials are necessary to confirm whether this approach can be used in choosing treatment options which would improve the prognosis of patients with occult primary cancers." 

A technology assessment prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Meleth, et al., 2013) found that the clinical accuracy of the PathworkDx, miRview, and CancerTypeID are similar, ranging from 85 percent to 88 percent, and that the evidence that the tests contribute to identifying a tumor of unknown origin was moderate. The assessment concluded that we do not have sufficient evidence to assess the effect of the tests on treatment decisions and outcomes. The assessment noted that most studies of these tests were funded wholly or partially by the manufacturers of these tests, and that the most urgent need in the literature is to have the clinical utility of the tests evaluated by research groups that have no evidence conflict of interest.

The presence of breast tumor cells in axillary lymph nodes is a key prognostic indicator in breast cancer.  During surgery to remove breast tumors, patients often undergo biopsy of the sentinel (i.e., first) node(s) that receive lymphatic fluid from the breast.  Excised sentinel lymph nodes are currently evaluated post-operatively by formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) histology and IHC.  GeneSearch™ Breast Lymph Node (BLN) assay (Veridex, LLC, Warren, NJ) is a novel method to examine the extracted sentinel lymph nodes for metastases and can provide information during surgery within 30 to 40 minutes from the time the sentinel node is removed, potentially avoiding a second operation for some patients.  The GeneSearch BLN assay received FDA pre-market approval on July 16, 2007 as a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the rapid detection of metastases larger than 0.2 mm in nodal tissue removed from sentinel lymph node biopsies of breast cancer patients.  GeneSearch BLN assay uses real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect the gene expression markers, mammaglobin (MG) and cytokeratin 10 (CI19), which are abundant in breast tissue but scarce in lymph node cells.  In the clinical trial conducted by Veridex, which was submitted to the FDA, the sensitivity of the GeneSearch BLN Assay was reported to be 87.6% and the specificity was 94.2% (Julian, et al., 2008).  According to the product labeling,"The GeneSearch™ Breast Lymph Node (BLN) assay may be used in conjunction with sentinel lymph node biopsy for a patient who has been counseled on use of this test and has been informed of its performance.  False positive results may be associated with increased morbidity.  False negative and inconclusive test results may be associated with delayed axillary node dissection.  Clinical studies so far are inconclusive about a benefit from treatment based on findings of breast cancer micro-metastases in sentinel lymph nodes."

Blumencranz et al (2007) compared the GeneSearch BLN assay with results from conventional histologic evaluation from 416 patients at 11 clinical sites and reported that the GeneSearch BLN assay detected 98% of metastases greater than 2 mm in size and 57% of metastasis less than 0.2 mm.  False positives were reported in 4% of the cases.  However, there were several limitations of this study, including the lack of a description of patient recruitment, inadequate descriptions of several analyses performed, substantial variations in test performance across sites, and ad hoc comparison of the assay to other intra-operative techniques.

Viale et al (2008) analyzed 293 lymph nodes from 293 patients utilizing the GeneSearch BLN assay.  Using histopathology as the reference standard, the authors reported that the BLN assay correctly identified 51 of 52 macro-metastatic and 5 of 20 micro-metastatic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), with a sensitivity of 98.1% to detect metastases larger than 2 mm, 94.7% for metastases larger than 1 mm, and 77.8% for metastases larger than 0.2 mm.  The overall concordance with histopathology was 90.8%, with a specificity of 95.0%, a positive predictive value of 83.6%, and a negative predictive value of 92.9%.  When the results were evaluated according to the occurrence of additional metastases to non-SLN in patients with histologically positive SLNs, the assay was positive in 33 (91.7%) of the 36 patients with additional metastases and in 22 (66.6%) of the 33 patients without further echelon involvement.  The authors concluded that the sensitivity of the GeneSearch BLN assay is comparable to that of the histopathologic examination of the entire SLN by serial sectioning at 1.5 to 2 mm.

Although treatment for metastases larger than 2.0 mm is widely accepted as beneficial, clinical studies have not yet provided data for a consensus on benefit from treatment based on very small breast cancer metastases (between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm) in SLNs.  False positive results may be associated with increased morbidity, usually due to effects of axillary node dissection surgery.  Patients who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) have significantly higher rates of increased swelling in the upper arm and forearm (lymphedema), pain, numbness, and motion restriction about the shoulder when compared with patients who undergo only sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND).  False negative and inconclusive test results may be associated with delayed axillary node dissection.  Clinical studies so far are inconclusive regarding a benefit from treatment based on findings of breast cancer micro-metastases in SLNs.  Preliminary data suggest that the GeneSearch BLN assay has high specificity and moderate sensitivity when only macro-metastases are included in the analysis.  The clinical significance of micro-metastases is still being debated in the literature, thus, the failure of the GeneSearch BLN assay to perform adequately in the detection of micro-metastases is of unknown significance.

A systematic evidence review by the BlueCross BlueShield Association Technology Evaluation Center (BCBSA, 2007) determined that the use of the GeneSearch BLN assay to detect sentinel node metastases in early stage breast cancer does not meet the TEC criteria.  The assessment stated, "There are several operational issues that add difficulty to the use of the GeneSearch assay, including the need for fresh specimens (rather than putting them in formalin for permanent fixation), the learning curve involved in reducing both the percentage of invalid results (from about 15% initially to 4 - 8% for more experienced technicians) and the time to perform the test compared to alternative intra-operative techniques (which take less than 15 minutes)."  Furthermore, the assessment stated "The GeneSearch assay also provides less information for staging than other intra-operative procedures, since it cannot distinguish between micro- and macro-metases.  Nor can it indicate the location of the metastasis (inside or outside the node).  Post-operative histology is therefore required in all cases.  It is less crucial when frozen section histology is performed, since pathologists can judge the size of the metastasis and its location from this test, although distortion is possible.  To summarize, the data available is inadequate to assess the clinical utility of the GeneSearch assay compared to either post-operative histology alone or to the alternative intra-operative tests such as imprint cytology and frozen section histology.  In addition, the balance of benefits versus harms may require higher specificity to avoid unnecessary ALNDs and their sequelae, whereas the GeneSearch design emphasizes sensitivity."

Thus, there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion about the effectiveness of the GeneSearch BLN assay.  The FDA is requiring the manufacturer to conduct two post-approval studies.  The primary objective of the first study is to estimate the positive predictive concordance between the GeneSearch BLN assay and histology as routinely practiced and the objectives of the second clinical study are (i) determine the assay turn-around-time from the time of node removal to the report of the assay result to the surgeon and (ii) determine whether the assay result was or was not received in time to make an intra-operative decision and (iii) collect data in relation to other surgical procedures during the sentinel lymph node dissection/breast surgery to determine if the assay turn-around-time resulted in longer surgery time.

Provista Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ) has developed a laboratory test called the Biomarker Translation Test, or the BT Test, which is a test score based on a multi-protein biomarker analysis (i.e., IL-2, -6,-8,-12, TNFa, EGF, FGF, HGF, VEGF) and medical profile of an individual's risk factors for breast cancer.  It is intended to be used as an adjunctive test along with other breast cancer detection modalities, however, there are no published studies of the effectiveness of this test.

Bcl-2 (B-cell CLL/lymphoma 2; BCL2) is a proto-oncogene whose protein product, bcl-2, suppresses programmed cell death (apoptosis), resulting in prolonged cellular survival without increasing cellular proliferation.  Dysregulation of programmed cell death mechanisms plays a role in the pathogenesis and progression of cancer as well as in the responses of tumors to therapeutic interventions.  Many members of the Bcl-2 family of apoptosis-related genes have been found to be differentially expressed in various malignancies (Reed, 1997).

Salgia (2008) reviewed the evidence for detection of Bcl-2 in lung cancer.  The author observed that Bcl-2 over-expression has been reported in 22 to 56% of lung cancers with a higher expression in squamous cell carcinoma as compared to adenocarcinoma histology.  The author concluded, however, that the association of Bcl-2 expression and prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer is unclear.  Multiple reports have demonstrated that Bcl-2-positive lung cancers are associated with a superior prognosis compared to those that are Bcl-2 negative.  However, other studies have failed to demonstrate any survival impact with bcl-2 positivity, while over-expression has also been associated with a poorer outcome.  A meta-analysis that included 28 studies examining the prognostic influence of Bcl-2 in non-small cell lung cancer concluded that over-expression of Bcl-2 was associated with a significantly better prognosis in surgically resected (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.39-0.65).

Compton (2008) recently reviewed the evidence on the Bcl-2 oncogene and other tumor markers in colon cancer.  Compton explained that Bcl-2 is a gene related to aptosis/cell suicide.  Bcl-2 over-expression leading to inhibition of cell death signaling has been observed as a relatively early event in colorectal cancer development.  The author concluded that the independent influence of the Bcl-2 oncogene on prognosis remains unproven, and explained that the variability in assay methodology, conflicting results from various studies examining the same factor, and the prevalence of multiple small studies that lack statistically robust, multivariate analyses all contribute to the lack of conclusive data.  Compton concluded that before the Bcl-2 oncogene and certain other tumor markers can be incorporated into clinically meaningful prognostic stratification systems,"more studies are required using multivariate analysis, well-characterized patient populations, reproducible and current methodology, and standardized reagents."

Compton (2008) reviewed the evidence for intratumor microvessel density (MVD) and antibodies against CD31 in colorectal cancer.  The author explained that intratumoral MVD is a reflection of tumor-induced angiogenesis.  Microvessel density has been independently associated with shorter survival in some, but not all studies.  A meta-analysis of all studies relating MVD expression to prognosis concluded that at least some of the variability could be explained by the different methods of MVD assessment.  The author noted that there was a significant inverse correlation between immunohistochemical expression and survival when MVD was assessed using antibodies against CD31 or CD34, but not factor VIII.  The author concluded, however, that there is a need for evaluation of MVD in large studies of prognostic factors using multivariate analysis; however, standard guidelines for staining, evaluation, and interpretation of MVD are lacking.

In a review, Hayes (2008) reviewed the evidence for assessing angiogenesis factors in breast cancer.  The author noted that, in an early report, MVD count (as indicated by IHC staining for endothelial cells, such as factor VIII-related antigen or CD31) was a statistically significant independent predictor of both disease-free and overall survival in women with both node-negative and node-positive breast cancer.  The author noted, however, that subsequent data are conflicting, with some studies confirming and others refuting the initial findings.  The author stated that, "As with many of the other tumor marker studies, evaluation of angiogenesis is complicated by technical variation, reader inconsistency, and potential interaction with therapy."

Burgdorf (2006) reviewed the use of CD31 in acquired progressive lymphangioma.  The author stated that special staining techniques reveal that the cells are variably positive for CD31, but that the staining patterns are too variable to be of diagnostic importance.

Some authorities have stated that CD31 staining may be useful for diagnosing angiosarcomas (Schwartz, 2008; Carsi & Sim, 2008; Fernandez & Schwartz, 2007; McMains & Gourin, 2007).  CD31 immunostaining can help confirm that the tumor originates from blood vessels.

The topoisomerase II alpha gene (TOP2A) is located adjacent to the HER-2 oncogene at the chromosome location 17q12-q21 and is either amplified or deleted (with equal frequency) in a great majority of HER-2 amplified primary breast tumors and also in tumors without HER-2 amplification.  Recent experimental as well as numerous, large, multi-center trials suggest that amplification (and/or deletion) of TOP2A may account for both sensitivity or resistance to commonly used cytotoxic drugs (e.g., anthracyclines) depending on the specific genetic defect at the TOP2A locus.  An analysis of TOP2A aberrations in the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group trial 89D (Nielsen, et al., 2008) suggested a differential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary breast cancer, favoring treatment with epirubicin in patients with TOP2A amplifications, and perhaps deletions; however, the authors concluded that, "Additional studies are needed to clarify the exact importance of TOP2A deletions on outcome, but deletions have proven to be associated with a very poor prognosis."

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2008) guideline on breast cancer does not address the use of TOP2A testing.

Ghoneim et al (2008) explained that thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) is a member of a family of five structurally related extracellular glycoproteins that plays a major role in cell-matrix and cell to cell interactions.  Due to its multifunctional nature and its ability to bind to a variety of cell surface receptors and matrix proteins, TSP-1 has been identified as a potential regulator of angiogenesis and tumor progression.  Data collected by Secord, et al. (2007) suggested that high THBS-1 levels may be an independent predictor of worse progression-free and overall survival in women with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.  However, a phase II clinical trail (Garcia, et al., 2008) of bevacizumab and low-dose metronomic oral cyclophosphamide in recurrent ovarian cancer reported that levels of TSP-1 were not associated with clinical outcome.

In a review on multidrug resistance in acute leukemia, List and Spier (1992) explained that the mdr1 gene or its glycoprotein product, P-glycoprotein, is detected with high frequency in secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and poor-risk subsets of acute lymphoblastic leukemia.  Investigations of mdr1 regulation in normal hematopoietic elements have shown a pattern that corresponds to its regulation in acute leukemia, explaining the linkage of mdr1 to specific cellular phenotypes.  Therapeutic trials are now in progress to test the ability of various MDR-reversal agents to restore chemotherapy sensitivity in high-risk acute leukemias.

In a phase III multi-center randomized study to determine whether quinine would improve the survival of adult patients with de novo AML, Soary, et al. (2003) reported that neither mdr1 gene or P-glycoprotein expression influenced clinical outcome.

A phase I/II study of the MDR modulator Valspodar (PSC 833, Novartis Pharma) combined with daunorubicin and cytarabine in patients with relapsed and primary refractory acute myeloid leukemia (Gruber, et al., 2003) reported that P-glycoprotein did not give an obvious improvement to the treatment results.

Motility-related protein (MRP-1) is a glycoprotein with a sequence identical to that of CD9, a white blood cell differentiation antigen.  The level of MRP-1/CD9 expression has been found in investigational studies to inhibit cell motility and low MRP-1/CD9 expression may be associated with the metastatic potential of breast cancer (Miyake, et al., 1995).  CD9 immuno-expression is also being investigated as a potential new predictor of tumor behavior in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (Mhawech, et al., 2004) as well as other tumors (e.g., urothelial bladder carcinoma, colon cancer, lung cancer); however, prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical role of MRP-1/CD9 expression in tumors.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guideline on occult primary tumors includes placental alkaline phosphatase (PLAP) as a useful marker to assist in identifying germ cell seminoma and non-seminoma germ cell tumors in unknown primary cancer (NCCN, 2009).

Myeloperoxidase (MPO), a blood protein, is a major component of azurophilic granules of neutrophils.  Myeloperoxidase analysis has been used to distinguish between the immature cells in acute myeloblastic leukemia (cells stain positive) and those in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (cells stain negative).  The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on acute myeloid leukemia (AML) include MPO analysis in the classification of AML (NCCN, 2008).

Matsuo et al (2003) examined the prognostic factor of the percentage of MPO-positive blast cells for AML.  Cytochemical analysis of MPO was performed in 491 patients who were registered to the Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group (AML92 study).  Patients were divided into two groups using the percentage of MPO-positive blast (high [ > or = 50%] and low [< 50%]).  Complete remission rates were 85.4% in the former and 64.1% in the latter (p = 0.001).  The OS and the disease-free survival (DFS) were significantly better in the high MPO group (48.3 versus 18.7% for OS, and 36.3 versus 20.1% for DFS, p < 0.001, respectively).  Multi-variate analysis showed that both karyotype and the percentage of MPO-positive blast cells were equally important prognostic factors.  The high MPO group still showed a better survival even when restricted to the intermediate chromosomal risk group or the patients with normal karyotype (p < 0.001).  The OS of patients with normal karyotype in the high MPO group was almost equal to that of the favorable chromosomal risk group.  The authors concluded that the percentage of MPO-positive blast cells is a simple and highly significant prognostic factor for AML patients, and especially useful to stratify patients with normal karyotype. 

The most commonly used marker for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the AFP level.  Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) (also known as "prothrombin produced by vitamin K absence or antagonism II" [PIVKA II]) has also shown promise in the diagnosis of HCC (Toyoda, et al., 2006; Ikoma, et al., 2002; Nomura, et al., 1996; Liebman, et al., 1984).  In one series of 76 patients with HCC, this marker was elevated in 69 patients with a mean serum concentration of 900 mcg/L.  Much lower mean values were seen in patients with chronic active hepatitis, metastatic disease to the liver, and normal subjects (10 and 42 mcg/L and undetectable, respectively) (Liebman, et al., 1984).  Elevations in serum levels of DCP are less frequent in tumors less than 3 cm in size (Nakamura, et al., 2006; Weitz & Liebman, 1993;).  Aoyagi, et al.(1996) and Weitz & Liebman (1993) reported that abnormal prothrombin levels do not correlate well with serum AFP.

Toyoda at al (2006) measured AFP, lens culinaris agglutinin A-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), and DCP for the evaluation of tumor progression and prognosis of patients with HCC (n = 685) at the time of initial diagnosis.  Positivity for AFP > 20 ng/dL, AFP-L3 > 10% of total AFP, and/or DCP > 40 mAU/mL was determined.  In addition, tumor markers were measured after treatment of HCC.  Of the 685 patients, 337 (55.8%) were positive for AFP, 206 (34.1%) were positive for AFP-L3, and 371 (54.2%) were positive for DCP.  In a comparison of patients positive for only 1 tumor marker, patients positive for AFP-L3 alone had a greater number of tumors, whereas patients positive for DCP alone had larger tumors and a higher prevalence of portal vein invasion.  When patients were compared according to the number of tumor markers present, the number of markers present clearly reflected the extent of HCC and patient outcomes.  The number of markers present significantly decreased after treatment.  The authors concluded that tumor markers AFP-L3 and DCP appeared to represent different features of tumor progression in patients with HCC and that the number of tumor markers present could be useful for the evaluation of tumor progression, prediction of patient outcome, and treatment efficacy.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guideline on HCC (NCCN, 2008) does not include measurement of DCP among the surveillance test options for HCC.  According to NCCN guidelines, proposed surveillance for the early detection of HCC among high-risk populations (e.g., chronic hepatitis C virus-infected patients) includes liver ultrasonography every 3 to 6 months and evaluation of alkaline phosphatase, albumin, and AFP.  The guidelines stated, "It is not yet clear if early detection of hepatocellular cancer with routine screening improves the percentage of patients detected with disease at a potentially curative stage, but high-risk chronic hepatitis C virus - infected patients should be considered for ongoing recurrent screening until these issues have been resolved.  The level of des-gamma-carboxy-prothrombin protein induced by vitamin K absence (PIVKA-II) is also increased in many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.  However, as is true with AFP, PIVKA-II may be elevated in patients with chronic hepatitis."  Furthermore, according to Sherman (2008), DCP has not been adequately studied as a screening test for HCC and cannot be recommended at this time.

Researchers at Matritech (Newton, MA) have detected the presence of nuclear matrix protein (NMP) in the blood of women at the early stage of breast cancer, which is absent in the blood of healthy women, as well as those with fibroadenoma.  NMP66 has been selected as a marker for further development and clinical trials of a test for use in the detection and monitoring of women with, or at risk for, breast cancer have been initiated (Wright and McGechan, 2003).  However, there are no published studies on the effectiveness of NMP66 testing at this time.

HERmark testing has been proposed for a number of indications, including use to predict response to trastuzumab in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.  Monogram, the manufacturer of the HERmark test, claims that the test can provide a more precise and quantitative measurement of the HER2 gene than IHC and fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) tests. The HERmark provides a quantitative measurement of HER2 total protein and HER2 homodimer levels, while conventional methods are an indirect measure of the HER2 gene, the manufacturer claims. The HERmark test will be offered as a CLIA-validated assay through Monogram's CAP-certified clinical laboratory.  Other proposed indications for HERmark include determining the prognosis for breast cancer, and predicting treatment results in cancers other than breast cancer (e.g., ovarian prostate, head and neck, etc.).  There are no current recommendations from leading medical professional organizations for the use of HERmark testing for breast cancer.

Noon et al (2010) stated that renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of kidney cancer and follows an unpredictable disease course.  These researchers reviewed 2 critical genes associated with disease progression -- p53 and murine double minute 2 (MDM2) -- and provided a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the literature regarding these genes in RCC.  Information was compiled by searching the PubMed database for articles that were published or e-published up to April 1, 2009. Search terms included renal cancer, renal cell carcinoma, p53, and MDM2.  Full articles and any supplementary data were examined; and, when appropriate, references were checked for additional material.  All studies that described assessment of p53 and/or MDM2 in renal cancer were included.  The authors concluded that increased p53 expression, but not p53 mutation, is associated with reduced overall survival/more rapid disease progression in RCC.  There also was evidence that MDM2 up-regulation is associated with decreased disease-specific survival.  Two features of RCC stood out as unusual and will require further investigation: (i)increased p53 expression is tightly linked with increased MDM2 expression; and (ii) patients who have tumors that display increased p53 and MDM2 expression may have the poorest overall survival.  Because there was no evidence to support the conclusion that p53 mutation is associated with poorer survival, it seemed clear that increased p53 expression in RCC occurs independent of mutation.  The authors stated that further investigation of the mechanisms leading to increased p53/MDM2 expression in RCC may lead to improved prognostication and to the identification of novel therapeutic interventions.

The OVA1 Test (Vermillion Inc. and Quest Diagnostics) is a serum test that is intended to help physicians determine if a woman is at risk for a malignant pelvic mass prior to biopsy or exploratory surgery, when the physician’s independent clinical and radiological evaluation does not indicate malignancy. The OVA1 Test employs an in vitro diagnostic multivariate index (IVDMIA) that combines the results of five immunoassays to produce a numerical score indicating a women's likelihood of malignancy. The OVA1 Test is intended to help physicians assess if a pelvic mass is benign or malignant in order to help determine whether to refer a woman to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery. The OVA1 Test was cleared by the FDA for use in women who meet the following criteria: over age 18, ovarian adnexal mass present for which surgery is planned, and not yet referred to an oncologist. The intended use of the OVA1 Test is an aid to further assess the likelihood that malignancy is present when the physician’s independent clinical and radiological evaluation does not indicate malignancy. According to the product labeling, the OVA1 Test is not intended as a screening or stand-alone diagnostic assay. There is a lack of evidence in the peer-reviewed published medical literature on the OVA1 Test.

In an editorial on the OVA1 Test, Muller (2010) stated that the role of OVA1 in a generalized practice setting and cost-benefit ratio has yet to be determined. Furthermore, the ACOG Committee Opinion on the role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer (2011) noted that the clinical utility of the OVA1 Test "is not yet established".

The ColonSentry test (GeneNews, Toronto, Canada) measures the expression of seven genes, which serve as biomarkers to detect colorectal cancer. Interpretation of the status of these seven biomarkers is intended to assist physicians in identifying patients who have an increased current risk. According to the manufacturer, individuals assessed as having an increased current risk of colorectal cancer should consider having a colonoscopy.  Individuals assessed as having a decreased current risk of colorectal cancer should discuss with their doctor further screening, including repeating ColonSentry at regular intervals. There is a lack of evidence in the peer-reviewed published medical literature on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with ColonSentry. No current evidence-based guidelines from medical professional organizations or public health agencies recommend ColonSentry for colorectal cancer screening.

Prostate Px (Aureon) uses a prostate cancer patient's biopsy tissue to provide an assessment of disease severity and disease recurrence. Clinical data is integrated with an analysis of each patient’s cancer using tissue histology and molecular biomarkers, such as androgen receptor, associated with disease progression. Although the manufacturer states that the results of the Prostate Px can be used in decision-making, there is a lack of evidence of the clinical utility of this test in altering the management of patients such that clinical outcomes are improved.

Post-Op Px is a prognostic test that utilizes a patented systems pathology approach to analyze prostatectomy tissue by combining cellular, molecular and clinical information to provide a thorough and more accurate picture of each patient's individual risk of prostate cancer recurrence. (Aureon, 2010).   Donovan et al  (2011) evaluated the performance of a systems-based risk assessment tool with standard defined risk groups and the 10 year postoperative normogram for predicting disease progression. The systems model was found to be more accurate than standard risk groups both to predict significant disease progression (p <  0.001) and for predicting prostate-specific antigen recurrence (p < 0.001).  However, this study has not been replicated in the peer-reviewed literature.

An assessment by the BlueCross BlueShield Association Technology Evaluation Center (2010) concluded that tumor-cell epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation analysis to predict response to erlotinib (Tarceva) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) meets the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) criteria.  Furthermore, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2010) recommend EGFR testing for the following histologic subtypes of NSCLC: (i) adenocarcinoma, (ii) large cell, and (iii) NSCLC not otherwise specified.  Epidermal growth factor receptor testing is not recommended for squamous cell carcinoma.

Messick et al (2010) evaluated carcinoembryonic antigen cellular adhesion molecule-7 (CEACAM-7) expression in rectal cancer as a predictive recurrence factor.  A single-institution colorectal cancer database and a frozen tissue biobank were queried for rectal cancer patients.  CEACAM-7 messenger RNA (mRNA) expression from normal rectal mucosa and rectal cancers was analyzed using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR).  Expression-level differences among normal tissue, disease-free survivors, and those that developed recurrence were analyzed.  A total of 84 patients were included in the study, which consisted of 37 patients with non-recurrent disease (median follow-up of 170 months), 29 patients with recurrent disease, and 18 patients with stage IV disease.  CEACAM-7 expression was decreased 21-fold in rectal cancers compared with normal mucosa (p = 0.002).  The expression levels of CEACAM-7 were relatively decreased in tumors that developed recurrence compared with non-recurrence, significantly for stage II patients (14-fold relative decrease, p = 0.002).  For stages I-III, disease-free survival segregates were based on relative CEACAM-7 expression values (p = 0.036), specifically for stage II (p = 0.018).  The authors concluded that CEACAM-7 expression is significantly decreased in rectal cancer.  Expression differences between long-term survivors and those with recurrent disease introduce a potential tumor marker to define a subset of patients who benefit most from adjuvant therapy.  Moreover, they stated that additional study and validation are needed before CEACAM-7 can be applied in clinical settings.

Castro et al (2010) assessed the potential value of cofilin (CFL1) gene (main member of the invasion/metastasis pathway) as a prognostic and predictive NSCLC biomarker.  Meta-analysis of tumor tissue microarray was applied to examine expression of CFL1 in archival lung cancer samples from 111 patients, and its clinicopathologic significance was investigated.  The robustness of the finding was validated using another independent data set.  Finally, the authors assayed in vitro the role of CFL1 levels in tumor invasiveness and drug resistance using 6 human NSCLC cell lines with different basal degrees of CFL1 gene expression.  Cofilin levels in biopsies discriminated between good and bad prognosis at early tumor stages (IA, IB, and IIA/B), where high CFL1 levels are correlated with lower overall survival rate (p < 0.0001).  Biomarker performance was further analyzed by IHC, hazard ratio (p < 0.001), and receiver-operating characteristic curve (area = 0.787; p < 0.001).  High CFL1 mRNA levels and protein content are positively correlated with cellular invasiveness (determined by Matrigel Invasion Chamber System) and resistance (2-fold increase in drug 50 % growth inhibition dose) against a list of 22 alkylating agents.  Hierarchical clustering analysis of the CFL1 gene network had the same robustness for stratified NSCLC patients.  The authors concluded that these findings indicated that the CFL1 gene and its functional gene network can be used as prognostic biomarkers for NSCLC and could also guide chemotherapeutic interventions.  Moreover, prospective, large-scale, randomized clinical trials are needed to establish the role of CFL1 as a prognostic and drug resistance marker for NSCLC.

The EarlyCDT-Lung (Oncimmune, De Soto, KS) test measures antibodies to 6 tumor-associated antigens: p53, NY-ESO-1, CAGE, GBU4-5, Annexin 1, and SOX2.  Elevation of any one of the panel of immuno-biomarkers above a predetermined cut-off value suggests that a tumor might be present.  The test is designed to be used in conjunction with diagnostic imaging.  High-risk individuals with a positive EarlyCDT-Lung would have additional testing such as a CT scan or the test would be used as a follow-up test for indeterminate lung nodules identified by CT.

Deeb et al (2004) stated that E-cadherin (E-cad) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are important cell adhesion and signaling pathway mediators. Theyr reported the results of a study which aimed to assess their expression in lung adenocarcinoma (AdC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and their association with clinicopathologic variables.  Two to three cores from 130 resectable lung cancers (stages I-IIIA) were arrayed into three blocks using a Beecher system. Markers expression and coexpression were analyzed against clinicopathologic variables (age, gender, smoking status, performance status, weight loss, histology, grade, stage, and lymph node involvement) and patient survival. For E-cad, 65 cases (55%) were positive (+), 53 (45%) were negative (-); and for EGRF, 43 cases (34%) were (+), and 83 (66%) were (-). There was no significant association between E-cad or EGFR, and any of the clinicopathologic variables except for an association between EGFR(+) and SCC histologic type. Both negative and cytoplasmic staining of E-cad correlated with shorter patient survival with P=0.008 and 0.002, respectively. EGFR expression did not correlate with patient survival, but, patients with E-cad(-)/EGFR(+) phenotype had poorer survival than those with E-cad(+)/EGFR(-) (P=0.026). The authors concluded that lung AdC and SCC may be stratified based on expression of E-cad and EGFR with the E-cad(-)/EGFR(+) expression having a worse disease outcome.

Yoshida et al (2011) report that a subset of lung cancers harbors an EML4-ALK (echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase) gene fusion, and they examined 15 lung adenocarcinomas with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-proven EML4-ALK fusion transcripts and 30 ALK-negative cases. Positive rearrangement signals (splits or isolated 3' signals) were identified in 13 to 78% (mean ± SD, 41% ± 19%) of tumor cells in the ALK-positive cohort and in 0 to 15% (mean ± SD, 6% ± 4%) of cells in the ALK-negative cohort. Sensitivity was at 93% and specificity at 100%. The only false-negative tumor having only 13% CISH-positive cells displayed predominantly (76%) isolated 5' signals unaccompanied by 3' signals. FISH showed largely similar signal profiles, and the results were completely concordant with CISH.The authors stated that they have successfully introduced CISH for diagnosing EML4-ALK-positive lung adenocarcinoma. This method allows simultaneous visualization of genetics and tumor cytomorphology and facilitates the molecular evaluation and could be applicable in clinical practice to detect lung cancer that may be responsive to ALK inhibitors.


Ellis et al (2011) conducted a systematic review and a consensus meeting of Canadian lung cancer oncologists and pathologists to make recommendations on the use of biomarkers in NSCLC.  The articles were reviewed by pairs of oncologists and pathologists to determine eligibility for inclusion.  Ten oncologists and pathologists reviewed and summarized the literature at a meeting attended by 37 individuals.  The findings included that there is some evidence that histology is prognostic for survival as well as evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials to recommend the following: histologic subtype is predictive of treatment efficacy and for some agents toxicity. Immunohistochemistry testing should be performed on NSCLC specimens that cannot be classified accurately with conventional H&E staining. As EGFR mutations are predictive of benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitors, diagnostic NSCLC samples should be routinely tested for EGFR-activating mutations. Clinical data on K-RAS mutations are inconsistent, therefore testing is not recommended. There is insufficient evidence to recommend other biomarker testing. No biomarkers to date reliably predict improved efficacy for anti-VEGF therapy. The authors concluded that outine assessment for EML4/ALK mutations is not recommended at present, although emerging data suggest that it may become valuable in the near future. 

Boyle et al (2011) reported the sensitivity and specificity of an autoantibody panel of 6 tumor-related antigens (p53, NY-ESO-1, CAGE, GBU4-5, Annexin 1 and SOX2) in patients with lung cancer.  Three cohorts of patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were identified: group 1 (n = 145), group 2 (n = 241) and group 3 (n = 269).  Patients were individually matched by gender, age and smoking history to a control individual with no history of malignant disease.  Serum samples were obtained after diagnosis but before any anticancer treatment.  Autoantibody levels were measured against the panel of 6 tumor-related antigens (p53, NY-ESO-1, CAGE, GBU4-5, Annexin 1 and SOX2).  Assay sensitivity was tested in relation to demographic variables and cancer type/stage.  The autoantibody panel demonstrated a sensitivity/specificity of 36 %/91 %, 39 %/89 % and 37 %/90 % in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively, with good reproducibility.  There was no significant difference between different lung cancer stages, indicating that the antigens included covered the different types of lung cancer well.   The authors concluded that the assay confirms the value of an autoantibody panel as a diagnostic tool and offers a potential system for monitoring patients at high-risk of lung cancer.

There is insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of the EarlyCDT-Lung as a screening test for the early detection of lung cancer.  Systematic screening for lung cancer is not unequivocally recommended by any major professional organization.  The USPSTF (2004) concluded that current evidence was insufficient to recommend for, or against, screening for lung cancer.  Whether earlier detection of lung cancer will translate to a mortality benefit remains unclear.

Shanmugan and co-workers (2010) stated that mucin 4 (MUC4) is aberrantly expressed in colorectal adenocarcinomas (CRCs) but its prognostic value is unknown.  Archival tissue specimens collected from 132 CRC patients who underwent surgical resection without pre-surgery or pos-tsurgery therapy were evaluated for expression of MUC4 by using a mouse monoclonal antibody and horseradish peroxidase.  MUC4 expression levels were correlated with clinicopathologic features and patient survival.  Survival was estimated by both uni-variate Kaplan-Meier and multi-variate Cox regression methods.  In both normal colonic epithelium and CRCs, MUC4 staining was localized primarily in the cytoplasm.  The optimal immunostaining cut-off value (greater than or equal to 75 % positive cells and an immunostaining score greater than or equal to 2.0), which was derived by using the bootstrap method, was used to categorize CRCs into groups of high expression (33 of 132 patients; 25 %) or low expression (99 of 132 patients; 75 %).  Patients who had early stage tumors (stages I and II) with high MUC4 expression had a shorter disease-specific survival (log-rank; p = 0.007) than patients who had with low expression.  Patients who had advanced-stage CRCs (stages III and IV) did not demonstrate such a difference (log-rank; p = 0.108).  Multi-variate regression models that were generated separately for patients with early stage and advanced-stage CRC confirmed that increased expression of MUC4 was an independent indicator of a poor prognosis only for patients who had early stage CRCs (HR 3.77; 95 % CI: 1.46 to 9.73).  The authors stated that aftr validating these findings in larger retrospective and prospective studies, a stage-based anayses could establish the utility of MUC4 as a prognostic molecular marker of early stage CRC.

Ratner et al (2010) stated that ovarian cancer (OC) is the single most deadly form of women's cancer, typically presenting as an advanced disease at diagnosis in part due to a lack of known risk factors or genetic markers of risk.  The KRAS oncogene and altered levels of the microRNA (miRNA) let-7 are associated with an increased risk of developing solid tumors.  In this study, these researchers investigated a hypothesized association between an increased risk of OC and a variant allele of KRAS at rs61764370, referred to as the KRAS-variant, which disrupts a let-7 miRNA binding site in this oncogene.  Specimens obtained were tested for the presence of the KRAS-variant from non-selected OC patients in 3 independent cohorts, 2 independent ovarian case-control studies, and OC patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) as well as their family members.  The results indicated that the KRAS-variant is associated with more than 25 % of non-selected OC cases.  Furthermore, these researchers found that it is a marker for a significant increased risk of developing OC, as confirmed by 2 independent case-control analyses.  Lastly, they determined that the KRAS-variant was present in 61 % of HBOC patients without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, previously considered uninformative, as well as in their family members with cancer.  These findings supported the hypothesis that the KRAS-variant is a genetic marker for increased risk of developing OC, and they suggested that the KRAS-variant may be a new genetic marker of cancer risk for HBOC families without other known genetic abnormalities.

Hollestelle et al (2011) noted that recently, a variant allele in the 3'UTR of the KRAS gene (rs61764370 T>G) was shown to be associated with an increased risk for developing non-small cell lung cancer, as well as OC, and was most enriched in OC patients from HBOC families.  This functional variant has been shown to disrupt a let-7 miRNA binding site leading to increased expression of KRAS in vitro.  In the current study, these investigators genotyped this KRAS-variant in breast cancer index cases from 268 BRCA1 families, 89 BRCA2 families, 685 non-BRCA1/BRCA2 families, and 797 geographically matched controls.  The allele frequency of the KRAS-variant was found to be increased among patients with breast cancer from BRCA1, but not BRCA2 or non-BRCA1/BRCA2 families as compared to controls.  As BRCA1 carriers mostly develop ER-negative breast cancers, these researchers also examined the variant allele frequency among indexes from non-BRCA1/BRCA2 families with ER-negative breast cancer.  The prevalence of the KRAS-variant was, however, not significantly increased as compared to controls, suggesting that the variant allele not just simply associates with ER-negative breast cancer.  Subsequent expansion of the number of BRCA1 carriers with breast cancer by including other family members in addition to the index cases resulted in loss of significance for the association between the variant allele and mutant BRCA1 breast cancer.  In this same cohort, the KRAS-variant did not appear to modify breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers.  More importantly, results from the current study suggested that KRAS-variant frequencies might be increased among BRCA1 carriers, but solid proof requires confirmation in a larger cohort of BRCA1 carriers.

ProOnc TumorSourceDx test is designed to identify tissue or origin for metastastic tumor.  It identifies 25 possible classes of tissue origin corresponding to 17 distinct tissues and organs.  It requires only 48 microRNAs to identify tissue of origin based on microRNA expression levels.  However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its clinical value as tumor markers.

Cocco and associates (2010) examined the expression of serum amyloid A (SAA) in endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and evaluated its potential as a serum biomarker.  SAA gene and protein expression levels were evaluated in endometrial endometrioid carcinoma and normal endometrial tissues, by real-time PCR, IHC, and flow cytometry.  SAA concentration in 194 serum samples from 50 healthy women, 42 women with benign diseases, and 102 patients including 49 grade 1, 38 grade 2, and 15 grade 3 endometrial endometrioid carcinoma was also studied by a sensitive bead-based immunoassay.  SAA gene expression levels were significantly higher in endometrial endometrioid carcinoma when compared with normal endometrial tissues (mean copy number by real-time PCR = 182 versus 1.9; p = 0.001).  IHC revealed diffuse cytoplasmic SAA protein staining in poorly differentiated endometrial endometrioid carcinoma tissues.  High intra-cellular levels of SAA were identified in primary endometrial endometrioid carcinoma cell lines evaluated by flow cytometry, and SAA was found to be actively secreted in vitro.  SAA concentrations (microg/ml) had medians of 6.0 in normal healthy women and 6.0 in patients with benign disease (p = 0.92).  In contrast, SAA values in the serum of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma patients had a median of 23.7, significantly higher than those of the healthy group (p = 0.001) and benign group (p = 0.001).  Patients harboring G3 endometrial endometrioid carcinoma were found to have SAA concentrations significantly higher than those of G1/G2 patients.  The authors concluded that SAA is not only a liver-secreted protein, but is also an endometrial endometrioid carcinoma cell product.  SAA is expressed and actively secreted by G3 endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, and it is present in high concentration in the serum of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma patients.  SAA may represent a novel biomarker for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma to monitor disease recurrence and response to therapy.  They stated that additional studies are needed to validate these findings.

Monzon et al (2009) stated that malignancies found in unexpected locations or with poorly differentiated morphologies can pose a significant challenge for tissue of origin determination.  Current histologic and imaging techniques fail to yield definitive identification of the tissue of origin in a significant number of cases.  The aim of this study was to validate a predefined 1,550-gene expression profile for this purpose.  Four institutions processed 547 frozen specimens representing 15 tissues of origin using oligonucleotide microarrays were used in this study.  Half of the specimens were metastatic tumors, with the remainder being poorly differentiated and undifferentiated primary cancers chosen to resemble those that present as a clinical challenge.  In this blinded multi-center validation study the 1,550-gene expression profile was highly informative in tissue determination.  The study found overall sensitivity (positive percent agreement with reference diagnosis) of 87.8 % (95 % CI: 84.7 % to 90.4 %) and overall specificity (negative percent agreement with reference diagnosis) of 99.4 % (95 % CI: 98.3 % to 99.9 %).  Performance within the subgroup of metastatic tumors (n = 258) was found to be slightly lower than that of the poorly differentiated and undifferentiated primary tumor subgroup, 84.5 % and 90.7 %, respectively (p = 0.04).  Differences between individual laboratories were not statistically significant.  The authors concluded that this study represents the first adequately sized, multi-center validation of a gene-expression profile for tissue of origin determination restricted to poorly differentiated and undifferentiated primary cancers and metastatic tumors.  These results indicate that this profile should be a valuable addition or alternative to currently available diagnostic methods for the evaluation of uncertain primary cancers.

Monzon and Koen (2010) stated that tumors of uncertain or unknown origin are estimated to constitute 3 % to 5 % of all metastatic cancer cases.  Patients with these types of tumors show worse outcomes when compared to patients in which a primary tumor is identified.  New molecular tests that identify molecular signatures of a tissue of origin have become available.  The authors reviewed the literature on existing molecular approaches to the diagnosis of metastatic tumors of uncertain origin and discuss the current status and future developments in this area.  Published peer-reviewed literature, available information from medical organizations (NCCN), and other publicly available information from tissue-of-origin test providers and/or manufacturers were used in this review.  The authors concluded that molecular tests for tissue-of-origin determination in metastatic tumors are available and have the potential to significantly impact patient management.  However, available validation data indicate that not all tests have shown adequate performance characteristics for clinical use.  Pathologists and oncologists should carefully evaluate claims for accuracy and clinical utility for tissue-of-origin tests before using test results in patient management.  The personalized medicine revolution includes the use of molecular tools for identification/confirmation of the site of origin for metastatic tumors, and in the future, this strategy might also be used to determine specific therapeutic approaches.

Anderson and Weiss (2010) noted that pathologists use various panels of IHC stains to identify the site of tissue of origin for metastatic tumors, particularly poorly or undifferentiated cancers of unknown or uncertain origin.  Although clinicians believe that immunostains contribute greatly to determining the probable primary site among 3 or more possibilities, objective evidence has not been convincingly presented.  This meta-analysis reviews the objective evidence supporting this practice and summarizes the performance reported in 5 studies published between 1993 and 2007.  A literature search was conducted to identify IHC performance studies published since 1990 that were masked, included more than 3 tissues types, and used more than 50 specimens.  The 5 studies found in this search were separated into 2 subgroups for analysis: those, which included only metastatic tumors (n = 368 specimens) and the blended studies, which combined primary tumors and metastases (n = 289 specimens).  The meta-analysis found that IHCs provided the correct tissue identification for 82.3 % (95 % CI: 77.4 % to 86.3 %) of the blended primary and metastatic samples and 65.6 % (95 % CI: 60.1 % to 70.7 %) of metastatic cancers.  This difference is both clinically and statistically significant.  The authors concluded that this literature review confirms that there is still an unmet medical need in identification of the primary site of metastatic tumors.  It establishes minimum performance requirements for any new diagnostic test intended to aid the pathologist and oncologist in tissue of origin determination.

According to the manufacturer, the Caris Life Sciences molecular profiling test, Caris Target Now, examines the genetic and molecular changes unique to a patient's tumor so that treatment options may be matched to the tumor's molecular profile. The manufacturer states that the Caris Target Now test is performed after a cancer diagnosis has been established and the patient has exhausted standard of care therapies or if questions in therapeutic management exist. Using tumor samples obtained from a biopsy, the tumor is examined to identify biomarkers that may have an influence on therapy. Using this information, Caris Target Now is intended to provide information on the drugs that will be more likely to produce a positive response. The manufacturer states that Caris Target Now can be used with any solid cancer such as lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer.

Evidence to support the use of Caris Target Now molecular profiling is limited to a single pilot study. The study (Von Hoff, et al., 2010) compared the progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with refractory metastatic cancers using a treatment regimen selected by Caris Target Now molecular profiling of the patient's tumor with the PFS for the most recent regimen on which the patient had experienced progression. The investigators prespecified that a molecular profiling approach would be deemed of clinical benefit for the individual patient who had a PFS ratio (defined as a ratio of PFS on molecular profiling-selected therapy to PFS on prior therapy) of greater than or equal to 1.3. In 86 patients who had molecular profiling attempted, there was a molecular target detected in 84 (98%). Sixty-six of the 84 patients were treated according to molecular profiling results. Eighteen (27%) of 66 patients had a PFS ratio of greater than or equal 1.3 (95% confidence interval 17% to 38%). Therefore, the null hypothesis (that less than or equal to 15% of this patient population would have a PFS ratio of greater than or equal to 1.3) was rejected. The authors concluded that, in 27% of patients, the molecular profiling approach resulted in a longer PFS on an molecular profiling-suggested regimen than on the regimen on which the patient had just experienced progression. An accompanying editorial (Doroshow, 2010) noted that the trial had a number of significant limitations, including uncertainty surrounding the achievement of time to progression (the study’s primary endpoint), and a lack of a randomized design for this trial.  

Kumaresan et al (2010) reviewed 1034 cases of morphologically difficult prostate cancer, which were divided into benign (585), malignant (399) and suspicious (50) and evaluated using CoA racemase (P504S) and HMWCK (34betaE12).  Forty nine suspicious cases were resolved by using both markers whereas 1 case was resolved by further support with CD68.  The original diagnosis was changed in 15 of 50 suspicious cases from benign to malignant, one case from benign to high grade PIN, and in one case from malignant to benign.  The authors concluded that a combination of HMWCK and AMACR is of value in combating morphologically suspicious cases and that although the sensitivity and specificity of HMWCK and AMACR in this study were high, “it should be used with caution, keeping in mind all their pitfalls and limitations.”

Murray et al (2010) studied P504S expressing circulating prostate cells as a marker for prostate cancer.  The authors stated that PSA is the only biomarker routinely used in screening.  This study aimed to develop a system to test the presence of circulating prostate cells in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer in realation with age, serum PSA levels and prostate biopsy by determining the co-expression of several markers such as CD82, HER-2 and matrix metalloproteinase 2 MMP-20.  The results indicated that among 409 men screened for prostate cancer 16.6% were positive for circulating prostate cells.  The authors concluded that the study of circulating prostate cells with various markers could be a useful complementary screening test for prostate cancer in men with increased PSA level.

The NCCN Task Force issued a report in November of 2011 which updated their position regarding molecular markers for diagnosis, prognosis, prediction, and companion diagnostic markers (Febbo et. al., 2011).  As a result of these recommendations, use of MGMT, IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion are now established for glioma.  Also, use of ALK gene fusion has been established for non-small cell lung cancer.  The updated NCCN guidelines have not yet established the efficacy of ColoPrint, CIMP, LINE-1 hypomethylation, or Immune cells for colon cancer.  Similarly, the efficacy of FLT3-TKD mutation, WT1 mutation, RUNX1 mutation, MLL-PTD, IDH1 mutation, IDH2 R172, and IDH2 codon 140 mutation has not been established for use in acute myeloid leukemia.

The DecisionDx-UM test determines the molecular signature of a patient's tumor. The DecisionDx-UM test is also known as the gene expression profile test (GEP) for uveal melanoma. The results of the test provide knowledge regarding the risk of near term metastasis (5 years). Tumors with a Class 1 signature are associated with a good prognosis and a low potential to spread (or metastasize), while tumors with a Class 2 signature have a high potential to spread. There is a lack of adequate published evidence on the clinical utility of this test. Current guidelines on melanoma from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network make no recommendation for this test. 

Guidelines on thyroid carcinoma from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2013) state: "Molecular diagnostics to detect individual mutations (eg, BRAF, RET/PTC, RAS, PAX8/PPAR gamma) or pattern recognition approaches using molecular classifiers may be useful in the evaluation of FNA samples that are indeterminate. For the 2013 update, the NCCN Panel added recommendations to consider molecular diagnostics for the evaluating FNA results that are suspicious for 1) follicular or Hürthle cell neoplasms; or 2) follicular lesions of undetermined significance (see Nodule Evaluation in the NCCN Thyroid Carcinoma algorithm).(63,64) Rather than proceeding to immediate surgical resection to obtain a definitive diagnosis in these categories, patients can be followed with observation if the application of a specific molecular diagnostic test results in a predicted risk of malignancy that is comparable to the rate seen in cytologically benign thyroid FNAs (approximately 5% or less)."  For support, the guidelines reference validation studies of the Afirma Thyroid FNA Analysis (Alexander, et al., 2012; Chudova, et al., 2010). These studies demonstrate that this molecular diagnostic meets NCCN threshold of predicting malignancy of 5 percent or less (i.e., a negative predictive value of 95 percent), allowing physicians to observe an indeterminate thyroid nodule in lieu of surgery.

The Alberta Provincial Thoracic Tumour Team’s clinical practice guideline on “Non-small cell lung cancer stage IV” (2011) stated that “First-line monotherapy with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib is recommended for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.  Testing for EGFR mutations should take place for all eligible patients with advanced NSCLC and adenocarcinoma histology who are being considered for first-line therapy with gefitinib, irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, and smoking status”.

Gao et al (2012) stated that gefiinib and erlotinib are 2 similar small molecules of selective and reversible epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), which have been approved for second-line or third-line indication in previously treated advanced NSCLC patients.  The results of comparing the EGFR-TKI with standard platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as the first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC patients with activated EGFR mutation were still controversial.  A meta-analysis was performed to derive a more precise estimation of these regimens.  Finally, 6 eligible trials involved 1,021 patients were identified.  The patients receiving EGFR-TKI as front-line therapy had a significantly longer PFS than patients treated with chemotherapy [median PFS was 9.5 versus 5.9 months; HR = 0.37; 95 % CI: 0.27 to 0.52; p < 0.001].  The overall response rate (ORR) of EGFR-TKI was 66.60 %, whereas the ORR of chemotherapy regimen was 30.62 %, which was also a statistically significant favor for EGFR-TKI [relative risk (RR) = 5.68; 95 % CI: 3.17 to 10.18; p < 0.001].  The OS was numerically longer in the patients received EGFR-TKI than patients treated by chemotherapy, although the difference did not reach a statistical significance (median OS was 30.5 versus 23.6 months; HR = 0.94; 95 % CI: 0.77 to 1.15; p = 0.57).  Comparing with first-line chemotherapy, treatment of EGFR-TKI achieved a statistical significantly longer PFS, higher ORR and numerically longer OS in the advanced NSCLC patients harboring activated EGFR mutations, thus, it should be the first choice in the previously untreated NSCLC patients with activated EGFR mutation.

The BCBS TEC’s assessment on “Multi-Analyte Testing for the Evaluation of Adnexal Masses” (2013) concluded that OVA1 does not meet TEC criteria.  It noted that “evidence regarding the effect of OVA1 and ROMA and effects on health outcomes is indirect, and based on studies of diagnostic performance of the tests in patients undergoing surgery for adnexal masses.  Although the studies show improvements in sensitivity and worsening of specificity with the use of the tests in conjunction with clinical assessment, there are problems in concluding that this results in improved health outcomes.  The clinical assessment performed in the studies is not well characterized.  Although OVA1 improves sensitivity, specificity declines so much that most patients test positive.  ROMA does not improve the sensitivity of testing to a great extent.  Underlying these issues is some uncertainty regarding the benefit of initial treatment by a gynecologic oncologist beyond the need for reoperation is some cases”.

Krijgsman et al (2012) noted that classification of breast cancer into molecular subtypes maybe important for the proper selection of therapy, as tumors with seemingly similar histopathological features can have strikingly different clinical outcomes.  Herein, these researchers reported the development of a molecular subtyping profile (BluePrint), which enables rationalization in patient selection for either chemotherapy or endocrine therapy prescription.  An 80-Gene Molecular Subtyping Profile (BluePrint) was developed using 200 breast cancer patient specimens and confirmed on 4 independent validation cohorts (n = 784).  Additionally, the profile was tested as a predictor of chemotherapy response in 133 breast cancer patients, treated with T/FAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy.  BluePrint classification of a patient cohort that was treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 133) shows improved distribution of pathological Complete Response (pCR), among molecular subgroups compared with local pathology: 56 % of the patients had a pCR in the Basal-type subgroup, 3 % in the MammaPrint low-risk, luminal-type subgroup, 11 % in the MammaPrint high-risk, luminal-type subgroup, and 50 % in the HER2-type subgroup.  The group of genes identifying luminal-type breast cancer is highly enriched for genes having an Estrogen Receptor binding site proximal to the promoter-region, suggesting that these genes are direct targets of the Estrogen Receptor.  Implementation of this profile may improve the clinical management of breast cancer patients, by enabling the selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from either chemotherapy or from endocrine therapy.

Furthermore, there is no information regarding BluePrint/molecular subtyping from NCCN’s clinical practice guideline on “Breast cancer” (Version 2.2013).

Yu and colleagues (2012) stated that the excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) plays an essential role in DNA repair and has been linked to resistance to platinum-based anticancer drugs among advanced NSCLC patients.  These investigators examined if ERCC1 Asn118Asn and C8092A genetic variants are associated with treatment response of platinum chemotherapy.  They performed a meta-analysis using 10 eligible cohort studies (including 11 datasets) with a total of 1,252 NSCLC patients to summarize the existing data on the association between the ERCC1 Asn118Asn and C8092A polymorphisms and response to platinum regiments.  Odds ratio or hazard ratio with 95 % CI were calculated to estimate the correlation.  These researchers found that neither ERCC1 C8092A polymorphism nor Asn118Asn variant is associated with different response of platinum-based treatment among advanced NSCLC patients.  Additionally, these 2 genetic variants are not related to treatment response in either Caucasian patients or Asian patients.  The authors concluded that the findings of this meta-analysis indicated that the ERCC1 Asn118Asn and C8092A polymorphisms may not be good prognostic biomarkers for platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with stage III-IV NSCLC.

Wang et al (2012) performed a meta-analysis by using 20 eligible studies to examine polymorphisms of ERCC1, GSTs, TS and MTHFR in predicting clinical outcomes (response rate, OS and toxicity) of gastric cancer (GC) patients treated with platinum/5-Fu-based chemotherapy.  The association was measured using random/fixed effect odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) combined with their 95 % CIs according to the studies' heterogeneity.  Statistical analysis was performed with the software STATA 9.0 package.  No significant association was found between response rate and genetic polymorphism in TS, MTHFR, ERCC1, GSTM1 and GSTP1.  However, response rate was higher in GSTT1 (+) genotype compared with GSTT1 (-) genotype (T-/T+: OR = 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.47 to 0.97).  With regard to long-term outcomes, these researchers observed a significant longer OS in TS 3R/3R [(2R2R+2R3R)/3R3R: HR = 1.29, 95 % CI: 1.02 to 1.64] and GSTP1 GG/GA [(GG+AG)/AA: HR = 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.39 to 0.67] genotypes.  In addition, significant association was demonstrated between toxicity and genetic polymorphism in TS, MTHFR and GSTP1 in included studies.  The authors concluded that polymorphisms of ERCC1, GSTs, TS and MTHFR were closely associated with clinical outcomes of GC patients treated with platinum/5-Fu-based chemotherapy.  Moreover, they state that studies with large sample size using the method of multi-variant analyses may help us to give more persuasive data on the putative association in future.

In a meta-analysis, Gong and colleagues (2012) examined if RRM1 expression is associated with the clinical outcome of gemcitabine-containing regimen in advanced NSCLC.  An electronic search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library and CNKI, from inception to May, 2011.  A systemic review of the studies on the association between RRM1 expression in advanced NSCLC and clinical outcome of gemcitabine-containing regimen was performed.  Pooled odds ratios (OR) for the response rate, weighted median survival and time to progression were calculated using the software Revman 5.0.  The search strategy identified 18 eligible studies (n = 1,243).  Response rate to gemcitabine-containing regimen was significantly higher in patients with low/negative RRM1 (OR = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.21 to 0.45, p < 0.00001).  Non-small cell lung cancer SCLC patients with low/negative RRM1 who were treated with gemicitabine-containing regimen survived 3.94 months longer (95 % CI: 2.15 to 5.73, p < 0.0001) and had longer time to progression for 2.64 months (95 % CI: 0.39 to 4.89, p = 0.02) than those with high/positive RRM1.  The authors concluded that low/negative RRM1 expression in advanced NSCLC was associated with higher response rate to gemcitabine-containing regimen and better prognosis.  Moreover, they stated that large phase III randomized trials are needed to identify whether RRM1 detection is clinically valuable for predicting the prognosis and sensitivity to gemcitabine-containing regimen in advanced NSCLC.

Friboulet et al (2013) stated that the ERCC1 protein is a potential prognostic biomarker of the effectiveness of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in (NSCLC.  Although several ongoing trials are evaluating the level of expression of ERCC1, no consensus has been reached regarding a method for evaluation.

Besse et al (2013) noted that somatic ERCC1 and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) expression levels have been extensively explored as markers of DNA repair capacity in tumor cells.  Although low ERCC1 and/or RRM1 expression is generally associated with sensitivity to platinum, the results published in retrospective and prospective studies are not always consistent.  These researchers examined the function of these 2 biomarkers as well as the tools available for their assessment and the associated technical issues.  Their prognostic and predictive values were summarized and considered in terms of customizing systemic therapy according to biomarker (ERCC1 and RRM1) expression levels.  The authors discussed why the use of both markers should at this point be restricted to clinical research.

Trock et al (2012) noted that hyper-methylation of genes such as glutathione-S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) and adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) occurs with high frequency in prostate tumor tissue but is much less common in the benign prostate; however, the potential value of gene methylation biomarkers as an adjunct to biopsy histopathology has had little study.  When measured in histologically benign prostate biopsy tissue, APC gene hyper-methylation was found to have high negative-predictive value (NPV) and high sensitivity.  GSTP1 hype-rmethylation was found to have lower performance than APC.  These investigators evaluated the performance of DNA methylation biomarkers in the setting of repeat biopsy in men with an initially negative prostate biopsy but a high index of suspicion for missed prostate cancer.  They prospectively evaluated 86 men with an initial histologically negative prostate biopsy and high-risk features.  All men underwent repeat 12-core ultrasonography-guided biopsy.  DNA methylation of GSTP1 and APC was determined using tissue from the initially negative biopsy and compared with histology of the repeat biopsy.  The primary outcome was the relative NPV of APC compared with GSTP1, and its 95 % CI.  On repeat biopsy, 21/86 (24 %) men had prostate cancer.  APC and GSTP1 methylation ratios below the threshold (predicting no cancer) produced a NPV of 0.96 and 0.80, respectively.  The relative NPV was 1.2 (95 % CI: 1.06 to 1.36), indicating APC has significantly higher NPV.  Methylation ratios above the threshold yielded a sensitivity of 0.95 for APC and 0.43 for GSTP1.  Combining both methylation markers produced a performance similar to that of APC alone.  APC methylation patterns were consistent with a possible field effect or occurrence early in carcinogenesis.  The authors concluded that APC methylation provided a very high NPV with a low percentage of false-negatives, in the first prospective study to evaluate performance of DNA methylation markers in a clinical cohort of men undergoing repeat biopsy.  They stated that the potential of APC methylation to reduce unnecessary repeat biopsies warrants validation in a larger prospective cohort.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Yu and colleagues (2013) examined the association between GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphism and prostate cancer (PCa) in different inheritance models.  A total of 13 eligible studies were pooled into this meta-analysis.  There was significant association between the GSTP1 Ile158Val variant genotypes and PCa for Ile/Ile versus Val/Val comparison [odds ratio (OR) = 0.705; I 2 = 63.7 %; 95 % CI: 0.508 to 0.977], Ile/Val versus Val/Val comparison (OR = 0.736; I 2 = 8.0 %; 95 % CI: 0.613 to 0.883), and dominant model (OR = 0.712; I 2 = 45.5 %; 95 % CI: 0.555 to 0.913).  However, no associations were detected for other genetic models.  In the stratified analysis by ethnicity, significant associations between GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphism and PCa risk were also found among Caucasians (Ile/Ile versus Val/Val comparison OR = 0.818, I 2 = 0.0 %, 95 % CI: 0.681 to 0.982; Ile/Val versus Val/Val comparison OR = 0.779, I 2 = 0.0 %, 95 % CI: 0.651 to 0.933; and dominant model OR = 0.794, I 2 = 0.0 %, 95 % CI: 0.670 to 0.941), while there were no associations found for other genetic models.  However, no associations were found in Asians and African-Americans for all genetic models when stratified by ethnicity. The authors concluded that the findings of this meta-analysis indicated that GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphisms contributed to the PCa susceptibility.  However, they stated that a study with the larger sample size is needed to further evaluate gene-environment interaction on GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphisms and PCa risk.

An UpToDate review on "Screening for breast cancer" (Fletcher, 2013) does NOT mention the use of carcinoembryonic antigen cell adhesion molecule 6 (CEACAM6).  Also, the NCCN's clinical practice guideline on "Breast Cancer" (Version 2.2013) does NOT mention the use of carcinoembryonic antigen cell adhesion molecule 6 (CEACAM6).

An UpToDate review on “Ductal carcinoma in situ: Treatment and prognosis” (Collins et al, 2013) states that “A DCIS Recurrence Score utilizing a multigene assay has been developed and a prospective evaluation of this assay was performed using tumors from 327 patients who participated in the aforementioned E5194 trial.  In a preliminary analysis, patients were stratified by recurrence score into three groups that were associated the following risks of an ipsilateral breast event (DCIS or invasive breast cancer) or invasive breast cancer:

  • Low (less than 39) -- 12 and 5 %, respectively
  • Intermediate (39 to 54) -- 25 and 9 %, respectively
  • High (greater than or equal to 55) -- 27 and 19 %, respectively

These results suggest that the DCIS score may help select patients who should undergo adjuvant radiation.  However, further validation of these results is required before the multigene assay can become a part of clinical practice.  It is also worth noting that a 12 percent risk of an ipsilateral breast event at 10 years in the lowest risk category may not be low enough to justify the routine omission of post-excision RT”.

The NCCN’s clinical practice guideline on multiple myeloma (MM) (Version 2.2013) stated that “Further understanding of the molecular subtypes of MM is emerging from the application of high-throughput genomic tools such as gene expression profiling (GEP).  With the currently available novel treatment approaches, a majority of patients with MM can now anticipate long-term disease control.  However, patients with cytogenetically and molecularly defined high-risk disease do not receive the same benefit from current approaches as low-risk patients.  GEP is a powerful and fast tool with the potential to provide additional prognostic value to further define risk-stratification, help therapeutic decisions, and inform novel drug design and development.  At the present time, standardized testing for GEP is not available and there is inadequate data to determine how this prognostic information should be used to direct patient management”.  The NCCN guideline does not include a specific recommendation for the use of the MyPRS test in risk-stratification or determining prognosis in the clinical management of patients with MM.

Oxnard et al (2013) stated that the identification of oncogenic driver mutations underlying sensitivity to EGFR and anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors has led to a surge of interest in identifying additional targetable oncogenes in NSCLC.  A number of new potentially oncogenic gene alterations have been characterized in recent years, including BRAF mutations, HER2 insertions, phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphonate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit alpha polypeptide gene (PIK3CA) mutations, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplifications, discoidin domain receptor 2 (DDR2) mutations, ROS1 re-arrangements, and RET re-arrangements.  These investigators discussed the techniques used to discover each of these candidate oncogenes, the prevalence of each in NSCLC, the pre-clinical data supporting their role in lung cancer, and data on small molecular inhibitors in development.

Shin and colleagues (2013) evaluated inhibitory effects of bevacizumab on VEGF signaling and tumor growth in-vitro and in-vivo, and assessed phosphorylation of VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2) and downstream signaling in endothelial cells as pharmacodynamic markers using phospho-flow cytometry.  These researchers also validated markers in patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab-based chemotherapy.  In in-vitro studies, bevacizumab inhibited proliferation of human umbilical vein endothelial cells in association with reduced VEGF signaling.  Notably, bevacizumab inhibited VEGF-induced phosphorylation of VEGFR-2, Akt, and extra-cellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK).  In-vivo, treatment with bevacizumab inhibited growth of xenografted tumors and attenuated VEGF-induced phosphorylation of Akt and ERK.  The median percentages of VEGFR2 + pAkt + and VEGFR2 + pERK + cells, determined by phospho-flow cytometry, were approximately 3-fold higher in mCRC patients than in healthy controls.  Bevacizumab treatment decreased VEGFR2 + pAkt + cells in 18 of 24 patients on day 3.  The authors concluded that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy decreased the number of VEGFR2 + pAkt + cells, reflecting impaired VEGFR2 signaling.  Together, these data suggested that changes in the proportion of circulating VEGFR2 + pAkt + cells may be a potential pharmacodynamic marker of the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic agents, and could prove valuable in determining drug dosage and administration schedule.

Janku et al (2013) noted that despite development of new therapies, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) largely remains an incurable disease.  Approximately 2 to 6 % of colorectal cancers harbor NRAS mutations.  The anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab is a backbone of most therapeutic regimens; however, biomarkers predicting its activity are not known.  These investigators reported 2 cases of mCRC with a Q61K NRAS mutation that had a favorable response to bevacizumab and the histone deacetylase inhibitor valproic acid.  In contrast, none of 10 patients with wild-type NRAS or unknown NRAS status and mutated KRAS (NRAS and KRAS mutations are mutually exclusive) responded to the same regimen.  The authors concluded that these results suggested that NRAS mutation merits further investigation as a potential biomarker predicting the efficacy of bevacizumab-based treatment.

Carmignani et al (2004a) conducted a study to report the role of combined treatments, including cytoreductive surgery and perioperative regional chemotherapy, in patients with synchronous systemic and intraperitoneal dissemination of appendix cancer. Study subjects were treated with cytoreductive surgery and perioperative regional chemotherapy and statistical analysis of variables utilized survival as an end point and included demographic characteristics, prior surgical score (PSS), tumor marker levels, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and completeness of cytoreduction (CC). With a mean follow-up of 42.6 months, median survival time (MST) for 15 patients was 28 months and 5-year survival rate was 29.4%. Female patients had a longer MST than male patients (p=0.0199) and survival was better in patients with PSS 0 and 1 (p=0.0277). Patients with elevated CEA and CA 19-9 levels had a shorter MST (p=0.0083 and p=0.0193, respectively) while PCI and CC comparisons did not show significant differences. The morbidity rate (n=2) was 13.3% and the mortality (n=2) rate was also 13.3%. The authors concluded that “acceptable morbidity and mortality and a 29.4% 5-year survival rate allows cytoreductive surgery and regional chemotherapy to be considered as a treatment option for selected patients with synchronous systemic and intraperitoneal dissemination of appendix cancer.”

Carmignani et al (2004b) in a further publication regarding gastrointestinal cancer, stated that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) tumor markers have found selected clinical application. The authors remarked that the use of these tumor markers in mucinous epithelial tumors of the appendix has not been previously determined. Thus, the authors conducted a study in which, in patients with peritoneal dissemination of a mucinous epithelial malignancy of the appendix, tumor markers CEA and CA 19-9 were prospectively recorded preoperatively within 1 week prior to definitive treatment and if the appendiceal tumor recurred, the tumor marker was determined. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of these two tumor markers in the management of this disease for these two specific clinical situations. CEA was elevated in 56% of 532 patients and CA 19-9 was elevated in 67.1% of these patients. Although the absolute level of tumor marker did not correlate with prognosis, a normal value indicated an improved survival. CEA was elevated in 35.2% of 110 patients determined to have recurrent disease and CA 19-9 was elevated in 62.9%. At least one of the tumor markers was elevated in 68.2% of patients. An elevated CEA tumor marker at the time of recurrence indicated a reduced prognosis and both CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers were elevated in a majority of these patients. This should be a valuable diagnostic tool previously underutilized in this group of patients. These tumor markers were also of benefit in the assessment of prognosis in that a normal level indicated an improved prognosis. At the time of a reoperative procedure, CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers gave information regarding the progression of disease and have practical value in the management of epithelial appendiceal malignancy with peritoneal dissemination.

Andreopoulou et al (2007) stated that mucinous carcinoma of the appendix is a rare entity with a distinct natural history that poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges and that mucinous peritoneal carcinomatosis is most commonly associated with primary tumors of the appendix and colon. The authors stated that usually the spread remains confined to the abdominal cavity and that imaging assessment of these mucinous lesions is difficult, while tumor markers (CEA and CA19.9) may be surrogates for extent of disease. 

Recruitment for large scale studies given the rare nature of mucinous appendiceal carcinoma would be challenging.  However, available evidence does illustrate a benefit to use of CA 19-9 in patients with mucinous appendiceal carcinoma.

Rasamny et al (2012) stated that cyclin D1 and FADD (Fas-associated protein with death domain) regulate the cell cycle and apoptosis, respectively, and are located on chromosome 11q13, which is frequently amplified in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).  This study evaluated these proteins as predictors of clinical outcomes for HNSCC.  A total of 222 patients with upper aero-digestive HNSCC were included in this study.  Patients with tumors that were strongly positive for cyclin D1 and FADD had reduced OS (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001), disease-specific survival (DSS; p = 0.039 and p < 0.001), and DFS (p = 0.026 and p < 0.001) survival, respectively.  Together, the 2 markers effectively stratified OS (p < 0.001), DSS (p < 0.001), and DFS (p = 0.002).  Strong FADD staining correlated with greater alcohol consumption and varied significantly with primary tumor site: 56 % of hypopharynx tumors expressed high levels of FADD but only 7 % of glottis tumors.  Using Cox regression analysis, FADD and N stage were significant independent predictors of DSS and DFS, whereas cyclin D1, FADD, and N stage were independently significant for OS.  The authors concluded that cyclin D1 and FADD may have utility as predictors of long-term outcomes for patients with HNSCC.  Moreover, they stated that further study is needed to determine if these proteins predict response to different treatment approaches or assist in selecting patients for multi-modality therapy.

O'Sullivan and colleagues (2012) examined if the RNA assay uRNA® and its derivative Cxbladder® have greater sensitivity for the detection of bladder cancer than cytology, NMP22™ BladderChek™ and NMP22™ ELISA, and whether they are useful in risk stratification.  A total of 485 patients presenting with gross hematuria but without a history of urothelial cancer were recruited prospectively from 11 urology clinics in Australasia.  Voided urine samples were obtained before cystoscopy.  The sensitivity and specificity of the RNA tests were compared to cytology and the NMP22 assays using cystoscopy as the reference.  The ability of Cxbladder to distinguish between low grade, stage Ta urothelial carcinoma and more advanced urothelial carcinoma was also determined.  uRNA detected 41 of 66 urothelial carcinoma cases (62.1 % sensitivity, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 49.3 to 73.8) compared with NMP22 ELISA (50.0 %, 95 % CI: 37.4 to 62.6), BladderChek (37.9 %, 95 % CI: 26.2 to 50.7) and cytology (56.1 %, 95 % CI: 43.8 to 68.3).  Cxbladder, which was developed on the study data, detected 82 %, including 97 % of the high grade tumors and 100 % of tumors stage 1 or greater.  The cut-offs for uRNA and Cxbladder were pre-specified to give a specificity of 85 %.  The specificity of cytology was 94.5 % (95 % CI: 91.9 to 96.5), NMP22 ELISA 88.0 %, (95 % CI: 84.6 to 91.0) and BladderChek 96.4 % (95 % CI: 94.2 to 98.0).  Cxbladder distinguished between low-grade Ta tumors and other detected urothelial carcinoma with a sensitivity of 91 % and a specificity of 90 %.  The authors concluded that uRNA and Cxbladder showed improved sensitivity for the detection of urothelial carcinoma compared to the NMP22 assays.  Stratification with Cxbladder provides a potential method to prioritize patients for the management of waiting lists.

An UpToDate review on “Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and staging of bladder cancer” (Lotan and Choueiri, 2013) does not mention the use of mRNA biomarkers/PCR testing as a management tool for bladder cancer.  Furthermore, NCCN’s clinical practice guideline on “Bladder cancer” (Version 1.2014) does not mention the use of mRNA biomarkers/PCR testing as a management tool for bladder cancer.

Glossary of Terms:

a2-PAG Pregnancy-associated alpha2 glycoprotein
BCM Breast cancer mucin
BTA Bladder tumor antigen
CA19-9 Cancer antigen 19-9
CA50 Cancer antigen 50
CA72-4 Cancer antigen 72-4
CA195 Cancer antigen 195
CA242 Cancer antigen 242
CA549 Cancer antigen 549
CA-SCC Squamous cell carcinoma
CAM17-1 Monoclonal antimucin antibody 17-1
CAM26 Monoclonal antimucin antibody 26
CAM29 Monoclonal antimucin antibody 29
CAR3 Antigenic determinant recognized by monoclonal antibody AR3
DU-PAN-2 Sialylated carbohydrate antigen DU-PAN-2
FDP Fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products
GCC Guanylyl cyclase C
MCA Mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen
NMP22 Nuclear matrix protein22
NSE Neuron-specific enolase
PLAP Placental alkaline phosphatase
PNA-ELLA Peanut lectin-bonding assay
SLEX Sialylated Lewis X-antigen
SLX Sialylated SSEA-1 antigen
SPAN-1 Sialylated carbonated antigen SPAN-1
ST-439 Sialylated carbonated antigen ST-439
TAG12 Tumor-associated glycoprotein 12
TAG72 Tumor-associated glycoprotein 72
TAG72.3 Tumor-associated glycoprotein 72.3
TATI Tumor-associated trypsin inhibitor
TNF-a Tumor necrosis factor alpha
TPA Tissue polypeptide antigen
 
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-9 Codes
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
84152
84153
84154
HCPCS codes covered if selection criteria are met:
G0103 Prostate cancer screening; prostate specific antigen test (PSA)
HCPCS codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
S3721 Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) testing
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
185 Malignant neoplasm of prostate
233.4 Carcinoma in situ of prostate
236.5 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of prostate
790.93 Elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA)
V10.46 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of prostate
V76.44 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of prostate
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
82378
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
153.0 - 154.1 Malignant neoplasm of colon and rectum
230.3 Carcinoma in situ of colon
V10.05 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of large intestine
V10.06 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction, and anus
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of breast
217 Benign neoplasm of breast
231.2 Carcinoma in situ of bronchus and lung
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast
238.3 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of breast
239.3 Neoplasm of unspecified nature of breast
V76.0 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of respiratory organs
V76.10 Breast screening for malignant neoplasms, unspecified
V76.19 Other screening breast examination for malignant neoplasms
V76.41 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of rectum
V76.51 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of colon
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
795.81 Elevated carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]
Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81201 - 81203
ICD-9 covered if selection criteria are met:
211.3 Benign neoplasm of colon
238.1 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of connective and other soft tissue
V18.51 Family history, colonic polyps [familial adenomatous polyposis]
Afirma Thyroid FNA analysis:
No specific code
ICD-9 covered if selection criteria are met:
237.4 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of other and unspecified endocrine glands [indeterminate thyroid nodules]
FISH assay of the BCR/ABL gene:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81206 - 81208
88271
88275
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
200.10 - 200.18 Lymphosarcoma [Lymphoblastic lymphoma]
204.10 - 204.12 Acute lymphoid leukemia
205.00 – 205.02 Myeloid leukemia, acute
205.10 - 205.12 Chronic myeloid leukemia
Cancer antigen 125 (CA 125):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
86304
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
199.1 Malignant neoplasm without specification of site, other
236.2 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of ovary
V10.43 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
V16.41 Family history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
V76.41 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of rectum
V76.46 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of ovary
V76.51 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of colon
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
795.82 Elevated cancer antigen 125 [CA 125]
Serial measurements of CA 15-3 (also known as CA 27-29 or Truquant RIA):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
86300
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
174.0 - 174.9 Malignant neoplasm of the female breast
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast
V10.3 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of breast
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
V76.10 Breast screening, unspecified
CA 19-9:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
86301
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
151.0 - 151.9 Malignant neoplasm of stomach [not covered for gastro-esophageal cancer]
153.5 Malignant neoplasm of appendix vermiformis [mucinous appendiceal carcinoma]
155.1 Malignant neoplasm of intrahepatic bile ducts [cholangiocarcinoma]
156.0 - 156.9 Malignant neoplasm of gallbladder and extrahepatic bile ducts
157.0 - 157.9 Malignant neoplasm of pancreas
230.2 Carcinoma in situ of stomach
230.8 Carcinoma in situ of liver and biliary system [covered for gallbladder and bile duct]
230.9 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified digestive organs
V10.04 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of stomach
V10.09 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of gastrointestinal tract, other
V49.83 Awaiting organ transplant status [liver transplant]
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
150.0 - 150.9 Malignant neoplasm of esophagus
153.0 - 154.1 Malignant neoplasm of colon and rectum
155.0, 155.2 Malignant neoplasm of liver [primary and not specified as primary or secondary]
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of the breast
179 - 182.8 Malignant neoplasm of uterus
230.3 Carcinoma in situ of colon
230.8 Carcinoma in situ of liver and biliary system [not covered for liver]
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast
577.2 Cyst and pseudocyst of pancreas
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
576.1 Cholangitis [primary sclerosing] [only covered for persons undergoing liver transplantation]
Cardioembryonic antigen cellular adhesion modecule-7 (CEACAM-7):
There is no specific code for Cardioembryonic antigen cellular adhesion molecule-7 (CEACAM-7)
ICD-9 codes not covered if selection criteria are met:
154.0 - 154.8 Malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus
230.4 Carcinoma in situ of digestive organs (rectum)
V10.06 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction, and anus
Caris Target Now Molecular Profiling Test:
There is no specific code for Caris Target Now Molecular Profiling Test
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) evaluation:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
83950
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
150.0 - 150.9 Malignant neoplasm of esophagus
151.0 - 151.9 Malignant neoplasm of stomach
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of breast [see criteria]
Serial measurements of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
84702
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
181 Malignant neoplasm of placenta (e.g., choriocarcinoma)
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
186.0 - 186.9 Malignant neoplasm of testis
196.1 Secondary malignant neoplasm of intrathoracic lymph nodes [mediastinal nodes]
233.39 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified female genital organs [germinal cell tumors (teratocarcinoma and embryonal cell carcinoma) of the ovaries]
233.6 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified male genital organs
236.1 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of placenta
630 Hydatidiform mole
V10.43 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
V10.47 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of testis
Serial measurements of AFP to diagnose germ cell tumors or the diagnosis and monitoring of hepatocellular carcinoma:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
82105
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
155.0 - 155.2 Malignant neoplasm of the liver and intrahepatic bile ducts
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
186.0 - 186.9 Malignant neoplasm of testis
196.1 Secondary malignant neoplasm of intrathoracic lymph nodes [mediastinal nodes]
230.8 Carcinoma in situ of liver and biliary system
233.39 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified female genital organs [germ cell tumors]
233.6 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified male genital organs
V10.43 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
V10.47 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of testis
V76.49 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of other sites
V76.89 Special screening for malignant neoplasm, other
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
181 Malignant neoplasm of placenta (e.g., choriocarcinoma)
236.1 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of placenta
630 Hydatidiform mole
Serial measurements of AFP and HCG together to diagnose and monitor testicular cancer:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
82105
84702
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
186.0 - 186.9 Malignant neoplasm of testis
233.6 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified male genital organs
V76.45 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of testis
Measurement of estrogen and progesterone receptors and steroid receptor status:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
84233
84234
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of breast
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
627.2 Symptomatic menopausal or female climacteric states
V49.81 Asymptomatic postmenopausal status (age-related) (natural)
K-ras (KRAS) with BRAF reflex testing:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81210
81275
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88363
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
J9055 Injection, cetuximab, 10 mg [to predict non-response to cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix) in the treatment of anal adenocarcinoma]
J9303 Injection, panitumumab, 10 mg [to predict non-response to cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix) in the treatment of anal adenocarcinoma]
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
152.0 - 152.9 Malignant neoplasm of small intestine, including duodenum [small bowel adenocarcinoma]
153.0 - 154.1 Malignant neoplasm of colon, rectum and rectosigmoid junction [metastatic colorectal cancer]
154.2 - 154.3 Malignant neoplasm of anal canal and anus [anal adenocarcinoma]
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus, and lung
211.4 Benign neoplasm of rectum and anal canal [if KRAS nonmutated] [Lynch syndrome (HNPCC)]
230.4 Carcinoma in situ of rectum [if KRAS nonmutated] [Lynch syndrome (HNPCC)]
MLH1, MSH2, MSH6:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81292 - 81294
81295 - 81297
81298 - 81300
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
153.0 - 153.9 Malignant neoplasm of colon [Lynch syndrome (HNPCC)] [all persons with Stage 2 colon cancer]
154.0 - 154.8 Malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction, and anus [Lynch syndrome (HNPCC)] [all persons with Stage 2 colon cancer] [under age 50]
211.4 Benign neoplasm of rectum and anal canal [under age 50]
230.4 Carcinoma in situ of rectum [under age 50]
ALK Gene Fusion:
There is no specific code for ALK gene fusion
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant of neoplasm of bronchus and lung [non-small-cell lung cancer]
ALK Translocations :
No specific code
Other CPT codes related to CPB:
81401
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant of neoplasm of bronchus and lung [non-small-cell lung cancer]
Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
85415
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of breast [node negative]
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast
CD 117 (c-kit):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
88184
+ 88185
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
[for determining eligibility for treatment with Gleevac]
150.0 - 159.9 Malignant neoplasm of esophagus
205.10 - 205.12 Chronic myeloid leukemia
CD 20:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
88184
+ 88185
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
[for determining eligibility for treatment with Rituxan]
200.00 - 202.98 Lymphosarcoma and reticulosarcoma and other specified malignant tumors of lymphatic tissue, hodgkin's disease, and other malignant neoplasms of lymphoid and histiocytic tissue
204.10 - 204.12 Chronic lymphoid leukemia
CD 25:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
88184
+ 88185
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
[for determining eligibility for treatment with Ontak]
202.10 - 202.18 Mycosis fungoides
202.20 - 202.28 Sezary's disease
202.70 - 202.78 Peripheral T-cell lymphoma
CD 31:
There is no specific code for CD 31
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88342
88343
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
G0461 Immunohistochemistry or immunocytochemistry, per specimen; first single or multiplex antibody stain
G0462     each additional single or multiplex antibody stain (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
171.0 - 171.9 Malignant neoplasm of connective and other soft tissue [angiosarcoma]
CD 33:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
88184
+ 88185
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
[for determining eligibility for treatment with Mylotarg]
204.00 - 204.02 Acute lymphoid leukemia
205.00 - 205.02 Acute myeloid leukemia
206.00 - 206.02 Acute monocytic leukemia
207.00 - 207.02 Acute erythremia and erythroleukemia
208.00 - 208.02 Acute leukemia of unspecified cell type
CD 52:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
88184
+ 88185
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
[for determining eligibility for treatment with Campath]
200.20 - 200.48 Burkitt's tumor or lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, or mantle cell lymphoma
200.70 - 200.78 Large cell lymphoma
202.00 - 202.88 Other malignant neoplasms of lymphoid and histiocytic tissue
204.10 - 204.12 Chronic lymphoid leukemia
Cyclin D1:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81401
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
200.40 - 200.48 Mantle cell lymphoma [diagnosing and predicting disease recurrence]
ICD-9 codes not covered if selection criteria are met:
173.02, 173.12, 173.22, 173.32, 173.42 Squamous cell carcinoma of lip, eyelid including canthus, ear and external auditory canal, face scalp and skin of neck
Fas-Associated Protein with Death Domain FADD:
No specific code
ICD-9 codes not covered if selection criteria are met:
173.02, 173.12, 173.22, 173.32, 173.42 Squamous cell carcinoma of lip, eyelid including canthus, ear and external auditory canal, face scalp and skin of neck
Prostate PX, Post-op PX:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88305
88313
88323
88342
88343
88347
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
G0461 Immunohistochemistry or immunocytochemistry, per specimen; first single or multiplex antibody stain
G0462     each additional single or multiplex antibody stain (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
185 Malignant neoplasm of prostate
NRAS mutation:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
81404
Ras oncogenes (except KRASand BRAF):
There is no specific code for ras oncogenes
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Testing:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81235
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88271
88275
88291
88313
88323
88342
88343
88358
88360
88361
88381
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
G0461 Immunohistochemistry or immunocytochemistry, per specimen; first single or multiplex antibody stain
G0462     each additional single or multiplex antibody stain (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
J8565 Gefitinib (Iressa), oral, 250 mg
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung [non small cell lung cancer]
ICD-9 codes not covered if selection criteria are met:
191.0 - 191.9 Malignant neoplasm of brain [Glioblastoma multiforme]
233.7 Carcinoma in situ of bladder [urothelial carcinoma]
233.9 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified urinary organs (ureter, renal pelvis) [urothelial carcinoma]
ROS-1:
No specific code
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung [non small cell lung cancer]
ZAP-70:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
88184
+ 88185
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met :
204.10 - 204.12 Chronic lymphoid leukemia [assessing prognosis and need for aggressive therapy]
Oncotype Dx:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88360
88361
88367
88368
HCPCS codes covered if selection criteria are met:
S3854 Gene expression profiling panel for use in the management of breast cancer treatment [not covered for Mammaprint, Rotterdam Signature 76-gene Panel, or Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio (HOXB13:IL17BR), or TargetPrint Gene Expression]
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
174.0 - 174.9 Malignant neoplasm of female breast [except node positive - see criteria]
175.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of male breast
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
153.0 - 154.1 Malignant neoplasm of colon and rectum
230.3 Carcinoma in situ of colon
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast [ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)]
V10.05 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of large intestine
V10.06 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction, and anus
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
V86.0 Estrogen receptor positive status [ER+]
V86.1 Estrogen receptor negative status [ER-]
T-cell receptor gamma chain gene rearrangement:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81342
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
202.10 - 202.18 Mycosis fungoides
Myeloperoxidase (MPO) immunostaining FLT3-ITD, CEBPA mutation, NPM1 mutation, and KIT mutation:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81244
81245
83876
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
205.00 - 205.02 Acute myeloid leukemia
PML/RARA:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81315 - 81316
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
205.00 - 205.02 Myeloid leukemia, acute
Placental alkaline phosphatase (PLAP):
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
84080
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
186.0 - 186.9 Malignant neoplasm of testes
233.39 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified female genital organs [germ cell tumors]
233.6 Carcinoma in situ of other and unspecified male genital organs
V10.43 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
V10.47 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of testis
Bladder tumor antigen (BTA) Stat Test, the nuclear matrix protein (NMP22) test, the fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products (Aura-Tek FDP) test, or the UroVysion fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) test:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
85362 - 85380
86294
86386
88120
88121
88365
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
188.0 - 188.9 Malignant neoplasm of bladder
233.7 Carcinoma in situ of bladder
V10.51 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
599.70 - 599.72 Hematuria
V76.3 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of bladder
ImmunoCyte:
There is no specific code for ImmunoCyte
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
188.0 - 188.9 Malignant neoplasm of bladder [as an adjunct to cystoscopy or cytology in monitoring]
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
V76.3 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of bladder [diagnosis or screening in asymptomatic persons]
Janus Kinase 2 (JAK2) mutations:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81270
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
205.10 - 205.12 Chronic myeloid leukemia
238.4 Polycythemia vera
238.71 Essential thrombocythemia
238.76 Myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia (Primary myelofibrosis)
238.79 Other lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues (Chronic myeloproliferative disease)
289.83 Myelofibrosis
BRAF mutation analysis:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81210
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
153.0 - 153.9 Malignant neoplasm of colon [Lynch syndrome (HNPCC)]
154.0 - 154.8 Malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction, and anus [Lynch syndrome (HNPCC)]
172.0 - 172.9 Melanoma of skin [for consideration of Vemurafenib, Dabrafenib and Trametinib]
202.40 – 202.48 Leukemic reticuloendotheliosis
ICD-9 codes not covered if selection criteria are met:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus, and lung
193 Malignant neoplasm of thyroid gland
Assaying for loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on the long arm of chromosome 18 (18q) or deleted in colon cancer (DCC) protein (18q-LOH/DCC) for colorectal cancer:
There is no specific code for 18q-LOH/DCC
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
153.0 - 154.1 Malignant neoplasm of colon, rectum, and rectosigmoid junction
OvaCheck test:
There is no specific code for OvaCheck
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
V76.46 Special screening for malignant neoplasm of ovary
Ovasure:
There is no specific code for Ovasure
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
82985
83520
84146
84305
86304
CellSearch assay:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
86152 - 86153
88346
88361
Cofilin (CFL1):
There is no specific code for cofilin (CFL1)
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of lung [non-small cell lung carcinoma]
ColonSentry:
There is no specific code for ColonSentry
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
V76.41 Special screening for malignant neoplasms; rectum
V76.51 Special screening for malignant neoplasms; colon
Early CDT-Lung Test:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
83520
Mammaprint:
HCPCS codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
S3854 Gene expression profiling panel for use in the management of breast cancer treatment
Mammostrat:
There is no specific code for Mammostrat
Mucin 4 expression:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
88313
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
153.0 - 154.1 Malignant neoplasm of colon, rectum and rectosigmoid junction
Microarray-based gene expression profile testing:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
81406
OVA1:
There is no specific code for OVA1
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
81503
Pathwork Tissue of Origin Test:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
81504
PreOvar Test for the KRAS-variant [to determine ovarian cancer risk]:
No specific code
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
V10.43 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
ProOnc Tumor Source Dx Test:
No specific code
Rotterdam Signature 76-gene Panel:
HCPCS codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
S3854 Gene expression profiling panel for use in the management of breast cancer treatment
Serum amyloid A:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
88342
88343
G0461
G0462
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
182.0 - 182.8 Malignant neoplasm of corpus uteri, isthmus and uterus
V10.42 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of uterus
Breast Cancer Gene Expression Ratio (HOXB13:IL17BR):
HCPCS codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
S3854 Gene expression profiling panel for use in the management of breast cancer treatment
Panexia:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
81406
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
185 Malignant neoplasm of prostate
PTEN gene expression:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81321 - 81323
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
759.6 Other congenital hamartoses, NEC [Cowden syndrome]
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung [non-small cell lung cancer]
GeneSearch Breast Lymph Node (BLN) assay:
There is no specific code for GeneSearch Breast Lymph Node (BLN) assay
Thymidylate synthase:
There is no specific code for Thymidylate synthase
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88342
88343
88360
88361
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
G0461 Immunohistochemistry or immunocytochemistry, per specimen; first single or multiplex antibody stain
G0462     each additional single or multiplex antibody stain (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
Topographic genotyping (PathfinderTG):
No specific code
Biomarker Translation (BT):
No specific code
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of breast
HE4:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
81500
86305
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
86316
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
183.0 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
HERmark:
There is no specific code for HERmark
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of breast
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF):
No specific code
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
83520
TargetPrint Gene Expression:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88360
88361
88367
88368
HCPCS codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
S3854 Gene expression profiling panel for use in the management of breast cancer treatment
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
174.0 - 174.9 Malignant neoplasm of female breast
175.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of male breast
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
V86.0 Estrogen receptor positive status [ER+]
V86.1 Estrogen receptor negative status [ER-]
CK5, CK14, p63 and Racemase P504S:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88342
88343
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
G0461 Immunohistochemistry or immunocytochemistry, per specimen; first single or multiplex antibody stain
G0462     each additional single or multiplex antibody stain (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
185 Malignant neoplasm of prostate
EML4-ALK:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
88381
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
162.2 - 162.9 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung [non-small-cell lung cancer]
Coloprint, CIMP, Line-1 hypomethylation and immune cells:
There are no specific codes for Coloprint, CIMP, Line-1 hypomethylation and immune cells
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
153.0 - 154.1 Malignant neoplasm of colon and rectum
WT1 mutation, RUNX1 mutation, MLL-PTD mutation, IDH2 R172, and IDH2 codon 140 mutation:
Des-gamma-carboxyl prothrombin (DCP):
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
83951
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
155.0, 155.2 Malignant neoplasm of the liver [primary or unspecified as primary or secondary]
230.8 Carcinoma in situ of liver and biliary system
Experimental and investigational circulating tumor markers:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
82387
84275
86316
88342
88343
G0461
G0462
Modifier 0N
There are no specific codes for the circulating tumor markers listed below:
Affirma Thyroid FNA Analysis; anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab; BluePrint molecular subtyping profile for breast cancer; Catalytic subunit alpha polypeptide gene (PIK3CA); C-Met expression; DCIS Recurrence Score; Glutathione-S-transferase P1 (GSTP1); Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphonate 3-kinase; Proveri prostate cancer assay (PPCA); Ribonucleotide reductase subunit M1 (RRM1); ROS1 re-arrangements; vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2); VeriStrat for non-small cell lung cancer and other indications; BreastNext Next-Gen Cancer Panel; CancerNext Next-Gen Cancer Panel; ColoNext Next-Gen Cancer Panel; Ovanext Next-Gen Cancer Panel; Mirinform thyroid test; Previstage GCC; Prostate core mitotic test; Prolaris; Oncovue; BREVAgen; UroCor cytology assay (DD23 and P53); CXBladder Test;


The above policy is based on the following references:
  1. Lein M, Stephan C, Jung K, et al. Relation of free PSA/total PSA in serum for differentiating between patients with prostatic cancer and benign hyperplasia of the prostate: Which cutoff should be used? Cancer Invest. 1998;16(1):45-49.
  2. Littrup PJ. Future benefits and cost-effectiveness of prostate carcinoma screening. American Cancer Society. Cancer. 1997;80(9):1864-1870.
  3. Gao X, Porter AT, Grignon DJ, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic markers for human prostate cancer. Prostate. 1997;31(4):264-281.
  4. Duffy MJ. PSA as a marker for prostate cancer: A critical review. Ann Clin Biochem. 1996;33(Pt 6):511-519.
  5. No authors listed. Ovarian cancer: Screening, treatment, and followup. NIH Consens Statement. 1994;12(3):1-30.
  6. Watine J, Charet JC. Are the ATS (American Thoracic Society) and the ERS (European Respiratory Society) correct in not recommending routine tfumor marker assays for screening, staging, or evaluation of non-small cell lung cancer? Rev Mal Respir. 1999;16(2):139-149.
  7. Seifert JK Morris DI. Indicators of recurrence following cryotherapy for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1999;86(2):234-240.
  8. Lagautriere F, Valvano L, Chaazl M, et al. Prognostic factors in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Ital Chir. 1998;69(4):491-497.
  9. Hamm CM, Cripps C. Carcinoembryonic antigen in metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Invest Med. 1998;21(4-5):186-191.
  10. Jessup JM, Loda M. Prognostic markers in rectal carcinoma. Semin Surg Oncol. 1998;15(2):131-140.
  11. Mazurek A. Niklinski J. Laudanski T. et al. Clinical tumour markers in ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1998;7(1):23-35.
  12. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on May 17, 1996 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(10):2843-2877.
  13. American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on November 7, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(2):793-795.
  14. Harrison LE, Guillem JG, Paty P, et al. Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen predicts outcomes in node-negative colon cancer patients: A multivariate analysis of 572 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(1):55-59.
  15. Lamerz R, Stieber P, Fateh-Moghadam A. Serum marker combinations in human breast cancer. In Vivo. 1993;7(6B):607-613.
  16. American College of Physicians. Screening for ovarian cancer: Recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 1994 J;121(2):141-142.
  17. Carlson KJ. Screening for ovarian cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(2):124-132
  18. Mogenson O. Prognostic value of CA 125 in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;44:207-212.
  19. Patsner B, Mann WJ, Vissicchio M, Loesch M. Comparison of serum CA-125 and lipid-associated sialic acid (LASA-P) in monitoring patients with invasive ovarian adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1988;30(1):98-103.
  20. Makar AP, Kristensen GB, Bormer OP, Trope CG. CA 125 measured before a second-look laparotomy us an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;45(3):323-328.
  21. Werner M, Faser C, Silverberg M. Clinical utility and validation of emerging biochemical markers for mammary adenocarcinoma. Clin Chem. 1993;39(11 Pt 2):2386-2396.
  22. Bates SE. Clinical Applications of serum tumor markers. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(8):623-638.
  23. Steinberg W. The clinical utility of the CA19-9 tumor associated antigen. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85:350-355.
  24. Devlin J, O'Grady J. Indications for referral and assessment in adult liver transplantation: A clinical guideline. British Society of Gastroenterology. Gut.
    1999;45 Suppl 6:VI1-VI22.
  25. Jorgensen LG,, Osterlind K, Hansen HH, Cooper EH. Serum neuron specific enolase (NSE) is a determinant of response duration in small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 1992;66(3):594-598.
  26. Johnson PW, Joel SP, Love S, et al. Tumour markers for prediction of survival and monitoring of remission in small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 1993;67(4):760-766.
  27. Wobbes T, Thomas CM, Segers MF, Nagengast FM. Evaluation of seven tumor markers in the treatment sera of patients with gastric carcinoma. Cancer. 1992;69(8):2036-2041.
  28. Hayes DF. Serum tumor markers for breast cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 1995;6(Suppl 2):26-27.
  29. Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, Sherry F, et al. The clinical value of CEA and CA 15-3 in breast cancer management. Int J Biol Markers. 1995;10(1):35-41.
  30. Sharma S, Zippe CD, Pandrangi L, et al. Exclusion criteria enhance the specificity and positive predictive value of NMP22 and BTA Stat. J Urol. 1999;162(1):53-57.
  31. Pirtskalaishvili G, Konety BR, Getzenberg RH. Update on urine-based markers for bladder cancer. How sensitive and specific are the new noninvasive tests? Postgrad Med. 1999;106(6):85-86, 91-94.
  32. Sawczuk IS, Lee B. The mechanism and clinical applications of the NMP22 tumor marker immunoassay: A review. Am Clin Lab. 1999;18(3):24-26.
  33. Burchardt M, Burchardt T, Shabsigh A, et al. Current concepts in biomarker technology for bladder cancer. Clin Chem. 2000;46(5):595-605.
  34. Grocela JA, McDougal WS. Utility of nuclear matrix protein (NMP22) in the detection of recurrent bladder cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27(1):47-51.
  35. Brown FM. Urine cytology. Is it still the gold standard for screening? Urol Clin North Am. 2000;27(1):25-37.
  36. Bast RC Jr, Ravdin P, Hayes DF, et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: Clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(6):1865-1878.
  37. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach AC, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(1):8-22.
  38. Morabito A, Magnani E, Gion M, et al. Prognostic and predictive indicators in operable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2003;3(6):381-390.
  39. Duffy MJ, van Dalen A, Haglund C, et al. Clinical utility of biochemical markers in colorectal cancer: European Group on Tumour Markers (EGTM) guidelines. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(6):718-727.
  40. Bubendorf L, Grilli B, Sauter G, et al. Multiprobe FISH for enhanced detection of bladder cancer in voided urine specimens and bladder washings. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116(1):79-86.
  41. Sarosdy MF, Schellhammer P, Bokinsky G, et al. Clinical evaluation of a multi-target fluorescent in situ hybridization assay for detection of bladder cancer. J Urol. 2002;168(5):1950-1954.
  42. Kruger S, Mess F, Bohle A, Feller AC. Numerical aberrations of chromosome 17 and the 9p21 locus are independent predictors of tumor recurrence in non-invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Int J Oncol. 2003;23(1):41-48.
  43. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO). Society of Gynecologic Oncologists statement regarding OvaCheck™. Position Statements. Chicago, IL: SGO; February 7, 2004. Available at: http://www.sgo.org/policy/position_statement.cfm. Accessed June 4, 2004.
  44. National Cancer Institute (NCI). Questions and answers: OvaCheck ™ and NCI/FDA Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials using proteomics technology. NCI News. Bethesda, MD: NCI; March22, 2004.Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/ProteomicsOvarian. Accessed June 4, 2004.
  45. Permanente Medical Group. Ovacheck. Permanente Medical Group Physician Home Pages. San Francisco, CA: Kaiser Permanente; 2004. Available at: http://www.permanente.net/kaiser/pages/f21815.html. Accessed June 4, 2004.
  46. Sullivan MG. Validity testing indefinitely delays Ovacheck release. FDA raises regulatory issues. Ob.Gyn.News Online. 2004;39(7):5. Available at: http://www.imng.com/IMNG/obgyn/. Accessed June 4, 2004.
  47.  U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH), Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OVID). Letter to Laboratory Corporation of America. Re: Ovacheck - Ovarian Cancer Screen. Rockville, MD: FDA; March 2, 2004. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/letters/030204-labcorp.html. Accessed June 4, 2004.
  48. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH), Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OVID). Letter to Quest Diagnostics. Re: Ovacheck - Ovarian Cancer Screen. Rockville, MD: FDA; March 2, 2004. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/letters/030204-labcorp.html. Accessed June 4, 2004.
  49. Petricoin EF, Ardekani AM, Hitt BA, et al. Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):572-577.
  50. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for bladder cancer in adults. In: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 3rd ed. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); June 2004.
  51. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The role of the generalist obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of ovarian cancer. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 280. Washington, DC: ACOG; December 2002.
  52. National Cancer Institute (NCI). Ovarian Cancer (PDQ): Screening. Health Professional Version. Bethesda, MD: NCI; updated February 20, 2004. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/
    ovarian/healthprofessional. Accessed September 22, 2004.
  53. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for ovarian cancer. In: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 3rd ed. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); May 2004.
  54. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Position of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice Regarding OvaCheck. Washington, DC: ACOG; February 25, 2004.
  55. Andrews E. Ovacheck: Breakthrough or also ran? Nat Rev Med. 2004;1(5).
  56. Check E. Proteomics and cancer: Running before we can walk? Nature. 2004;429(6991):496-497.
  57. Diamandis EP. OvaCheck: Doubts voiced soon after publication. Nature. 2004;430(7000):611.
  58. Gandini O, Luci L, Stigliano A, et al. Is DD3 a new prostate-specific gene? Anticancer Res. 2003;23:305-308.
  59. Schalken JA, Hessels D, Verhaegh G. New targetes for therapy in prostate cancer: Differential display code 3 (DD3/PCA3), a highly prostate cancer specific gene. Urology. 2003;62(suppl 5A):34-43.
  60. Bussemakers MJG, van Bokhoven A, Verheagh GW, et al. DD3: A new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 1999;59:5975-5979.
  61. de Kok JB, Verhaegh GW, Roelofs RW et al. DDS (PCA3), a very sensitive and specific marker to detect prostate tumors. Cancer Res. 2002;62:2695-2698.
  62. Hessels D, Klein Gunnewiek JM, van Oort I, et al. DD3 (PCA3) based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2003;44:8-16.
  63. Abeloff MD, Armitage JO, Niederhuber JE, et al. Clinical Oncology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA. Churchill Livingstone; 2004: 2369.
  64. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH). CellSearch™ Epithelial Cell Kit / CellSpotter™ Analyzer. 510(k) no. K031588. Rockville, MD: FDA; January 21, 2004.
  65. Cristofanilli M, Budd GT, Ellis MJ, et al. Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(8):781-791.
  66. Kahn HJ, Presta A, Yang LY, et al. Enumeration of circulating tumor cells in the blood of breast cancer patients after filtration enrichment: Correlation with disease stage. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;86(3):237-247.
  67. Allard WJ, Matera J, Miller MC, et al. Tumor cells circulate in the peripheral blood of all major carcinomas but not in healthy subjects or patients with nonmalignant diseases. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(20):6897-6904.
  68. Veridex, LLC. CellSearch™ [website]. Warren, NJ: Veridex; 2005. Available at: http://www.veridex.com. Accessed December 17, 2004.
  69. Muller V, Pantel K. Bone marrow micrometastases and circulating tumor cells: Current aspects and future perspectives. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6(6):258-261.
  70. Gilbey AM, Burnett D, Coleman RE, Holen I. The detection of circulating breast cancer cells in blood. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57(9):903-911.
  71. Ring A, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Circulating tumour cells in breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Feb;5(2):79-88.
  72. Pantel K, Muller V, Auer M, et al. Detection and clinical implications of early systemic tumor cell dissemination in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9(17):6326-6334.
  73. Baker M, Gillanders WE, Mikhitarian K, et al. The molecular detection of micrometastatic breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2003;186(4):351-358.
  74. Weigelt B, Bosma AJ, Hart AA, et al. Marker genes for circulating tumour cells predict survival in metastasized breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(7):1091-1094.
  75. Glas A S, Roos D, Deutekom M, et al. Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer: A systematic review. J Urol. 2003;169(6):1975-1982.
  76. 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.
  77. Esteva FJ, Sahin AA, Coombes K, et al. Multi-gene RT-PCR assay for predicting recurrence in node negative breast cancer patients -- M.D. Anderson Clinical Validation Study [abstract]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;82 (Suppl 1):S11.
  78. Bast RC Jr, Hortobagyi GN. Individualized care for patients with cancer - a work in progress. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2865-2867.
  79. Kamisawa T, Fukayama M, Koike M, et al. Carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater: Expression of cancer-associated antigens inversely correlated with prognosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1988;83(10):1118-1123.
  80. Matorras R, Rodriguez-Escuderoi FJ, Diez J, et al. Monitoring endometrial adenocarcinoma with a four tumor marker combination. CA 125, squamous cell carcinoma antigen, CA 19.9 and CA 15.3. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1992;71(6):458-464.
  81. Dorandeu A, Raoul JL, Siriser F, et al. Carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater: prognostic factors after curative surgery: A series of 45 cases. Gut. 1997;40:350-355.
  82. Abrams RA, Grochow LB, Chakravarthy A, et al. Intensified adjuvant therapy for pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinoma: Survival results and observations regarding patterns of failure, radiotherapy dose and CA19-9 levels. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44(5):1039-1046.
  83. Kau SY, Shyr YM, Su CH, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic values of CA 19-9 and CEA in periampullary cancers. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;188(4):415-420.
  84. Cherchi PL, Dessole S, Ruiu GA, et al. The value of serum CA 125 and association CA 125/CA 19-9 in endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1999;20(4):315-317.
  85. Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, et al. Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD001768.
  86. Grossfeld GD, Litwin MS, Wolf JS Jr, et al. Evaluation of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria in adults: The American Urological Association best practice policy--part II: Patient evaluation, cytology, voided markers, imaging, cystoscopy, nephrology evaluation, and follow-up. Urology. 2001;57(4):604-610.
  87. Segal R, Lukka H, Klotz LH, et al.; Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative Genitourinary Cancer Disease Site Group. Surveillance programs for early stage non-seminomatous testicular cancer: A practice guideline. Can J Urol. 2001;8(1):1184-1192.
  88. Levine M, Moutquin JM, Walton R, Feightner J. Chemoprevention of breast cancer. A joint guideline from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the Canadian Breast Cancer Initiative's Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. CMAJ. 2001;164(12):1681-1690.
  89. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Chemoprevention of breast cancer: Recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(1):56-58.
  90. Jeffery GM, Hickey BE, Hider P. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD002200.
  91. Garcia-Barcina M, Martin Bueno AE, de Bujanda Fernandez Pierola L, et al. Tumour markers in certain cancer locations. D-02-03. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment, Health Department Basque Government (OSTEBA); 2002.
  92. Gupta S, Bent S, Kohlwes J. Test characteristics of alpha-fetoprotein for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(1):46-50.
  93. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Epithelial ovarian cancer. A national clinical guideline. SIGN Pub. No. 75. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN); October 2003.
  94. Baron TH, Mallery JS, Hirota WK, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(5):643-649.
  95. Riley RD, Burchill SA, Abrams KR, et al. A systematic review and evaluation of the use of tumour markers in paediatric oncology: Ewing's sarcoma and neuroblastoma. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(5):1-162
  96. Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT). Operative treatment for chronic pancreatitis. Manchester, MA: SSAT; 2004.
  97. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI). Breast cancer treatment. ICSI Healthcare Guidelines. Bloomington, MN: ICSI; September 2004.
  98. Fradet Y, Saad F, Aprikian A, et al. uPM3, a new molecular urine test for the detection of prostate cancer. Urology. 2004;64(2):311-315; discussion 315-316.
  99. Tinzl M, Marberger M, Horvath S, Chypre C. DD3PCA3 RNA analysis in urine--a new perspective for detecting prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2004;46(2):182-186; discussion 187.
  100. Pfister DG, Johnson DH, Azzoli CG, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology treatment of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer guideline: Update 2003. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(2):330-353.
  101. Otchy D, Hyman NH, Simmang C, et al. Practice parameters for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(8):1269-1284.
  102. Saad F. UPM3: Review of a new molecular diagnostic urine test for prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 2005;12 Suppl 1:40-43; discussion 99-100.
  103. Bast RC Jr, Badgwell D, Lu Z, et al. New tumor markers: CA125 and beyond. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15 Suppl 3:274-281.
  104. Garner EI. Advances in the early detection of ovarian carcinoma. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(6):447-453.
  105. Fields MM, Chevlen E. Ovarian cancer screening: A look at the evidence. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2006;10(1):77-81.
  106. Paik et al. Gene Expression and Benefit of Chemotherapy in Women With Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 0 (2006), p. JCO.2005.04.7985v1
  107. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2006; 8:R25 (doi:10.1186/bcr1412).
  108. Burstein HJ, Paik S, Ravdin PM, Albain KS. Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with estrogen receptor-postitive breast cancer. 2006 ASCO Educational Sessions. 2006:49-55.
  109. Aguado J. Identification of circulating tumour cells in metastatic breast cancer with the CellSearch (TM) system [summary]. Technological Report. Seville, Spain: Agencia de Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias de Andalucia (AETSA); 2006. Available at: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud/contenidos/aetsa/pdf/Ficha%20CTCs%20ENG.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2006.
  110. Hultcrantz R, Olsson R, Danielsson A, et al. A 3-year prospective study on serum tumor markers used for detecting cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 1999;30(4):669-673.
  111. Chakravatri A, Zehr EM, Zietman AL, et al. Thymosin beta-15 predicts for distant failure in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer-results from a pilot study. Urology. 2000;55(5):635-638. 
  112. van de Vijver, 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.
  113. Nehls O, Gregor M, Klump B. Serum and bile markers for cholangiocarcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2004;24(2):139-154.
  114. Levy C, Lymp J, Angulo P, et al. The value of serum CA 19-9 in predicting cholangiocarcinomas in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50(9):1734-1740.
  115. Hutchinson LM, Chang EL, Becker CM, et al. Development of a sensitive and specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for thymosin beta15, a urinary biomarker of human prostate cancer. Clin Biochem. 2005;38(6):558-571.
  116. Locker GY, Hamilton S, Harris J, et al; ASCO. ASCO 2006 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(33):5313-5327.
  117. Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC, Smith TJ, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(31):5091-5097.
  118. National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC). NMP22 BladderChek proteomic assay for the detection of bladder cancer - horizon scanning technology note. Birmingham, UK: NHSC; 2006.
  119. National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC). Prostate cancer gene 3 (Progensa PCA3) assay in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: Horizon Scanning Technology Briefing. Birmingham, UK: NHSC; 2006. 
  120. Parrella A, Mundy L, Merlin T, Hiller J. NMP22 BladderChek(TM) point-of-care diagnostic test for bladder cancer. Horizon Scanning Prioritising Summary - Volume 9. Adelaide, SA: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA) on behalf of National Horizon Scanning Unit (HealthPACT and MSAC); 2005.
  121. California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF). Gene expression profiling as a guide for the management of early stage breast cancer. Technology Assessment. San Francisco, CA: CTAF; 2007. Available at: http://ctaf.org/content/general/detail/621. Accessed. April 13, 2007.
  122. Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, et al. Genomic tests for ovarian cancer detection and management. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 145. Prepared by the Duke Evidence-Based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). AHRQ Publication No. 07-E0001. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; October 2006. Available at:
    http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/genomicovc/genovc.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2007.
  123. Finkelstein SD, Marsh W, Demetris AJ, et al. Microdissection-based allelotyping discriminates de novo tumor from intrahepatic spread in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2003;37(4):871-879.
  124. Finkelstein SD, Przygodzki R, Pricolo VE, et al. Prediction of biologic aggressiveness in colorectal cancer by p53/K-ras-2 topographic genotyping. Mol Diagn. 1996;1(1):5-28.
  125. Kanbour-shakir A, Kounelis S, Papadaki H, et al. Relationship of p53 genotype to second-look recurrence and survival in ovarian epithelial malignancy. Mol Diagn. 1996;1(2):121-129.
  126. Ribeiro U, Safatle-Ribeiro AV, Posner MC, et al. Comparative p53 mutational analysis of multiple primary cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract. Surgery. 1996;120(1):45-53.
  127. Przygodzki RM, Koss MN, Moran CA, et al. Pleomorphic (giant and spindle cell) carcinoma is genetically distinct from adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma by K-ras-2 and p53 analysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;106(4):487-492.
  128. Safatle-Ribeiro AV, Ribeiro Junior U, Reynolds JC, et al. Morphologic, histologic, and molecular similarities between adenocarcinomas arising in the gastric stump and the intact stomach. Cancer. 1996;78(11):2288-2299.
  129. Przygodzki RM, Finkelstein SD, Keohavong P, et al. Sporadic and thorotrast-induced angiosarcomas of the liver manifest frequent and multiple point mutations in K-ras-2. Lab Invest. 1997;76(1):153-159.
  130. Pricolo VE, Finkelstein SD, Bland KI.  Topographic genotyping of colorectal carcinoma: From a molecular carcinogenesis model to clinical relevance. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4(3):269-278.
  131. Holst VA, Finkelstein S, Colby TV, et al.  p53 and K-ras mutational genotyping in pulmonary carcinosarcoma, spindle cell carcinoma, and pulmonary blastoma: Implications for histogenesis. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(7):801-811.
  132. Jones MW, Kounelis S, Papadaki H, et al. The origin and molecular characterization of adenoid basal carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997;16(4):301-306.
  133. Jones MW, Kounelis S, Hsu C, et al. Prognostic value of p53 and K-ras-2 topographic genotyping in endometrial carcinoma: A clinicopathologic and molecular comparison. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997;16(4):354-360.
  134. Kounelis S, Jones MW, Papadaki H, et al. Carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed mullerian tumors) of the female genital tract: Comparative molecular analysis of epithelial and mesenchymal components. Hum Pathol. 1998;29(1):82-87.
  135. Ribeiro U Jr, Finkelstein SD, Safatle-Ribeiro AV, et al. p53 sequence analysis predicts treatment response and outcome of patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 1998;83(1):7-18.
  136. Finkelstein SD, Tiffee JC, Bakker A, et al. Malignant transformation in sinonasal papillomas is closely associated with aberrant p53 expression. Mol Diagn. 1998;3(1):37-41.
  137. Holst VA, Finkelstein S, Yousem SA. Bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma of lung: Monoclonal origin for multifocal disease. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22(11):1343-1350.
  138. Pollack IF, Finkelstein SD, Burnham J, et al.; Children's Cancer Group. Age and TP53 mutation frequency in childhood malignant gliomas: Results in a multi-institutional cohort. Cancer Res. 2001;61(20):7404-7407.
  139. Papadaki H, Kounelis S, Kapadia SB, et al. Relationship of p53 gene alterations with tumor progression and recurrence in olfactory neuroblastoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20(6):715-721.
  140. Przygodzki RM, Finkelstein SD, Langer JC, et al. Analysis of p53, K-ras-2, and C-raf-1 in pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. Correlation with histological subtype and clinical outcome. Am J Pathol. 1996;148(5):1531-1541.
  141. Pricolo VE, Finkelstein SD, Wu TT, et al. Prognostic value of TP53 and K-ras-2 mutational analysis in stage III carcinoma of the colon. Am J Surg. 1996;171(1):41-46.
  142. Finkelstein SD, Przygodzki R, Pricolo VE, et al. K-ras-2 topographic genotyping of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Arch Surg. 1994;129(4):367-73.
  143. Lin X, Finkelstein SD, Zhu B, Silverman JF. Molecular analysis of multifocal papillary thyroid carcinoma. J Mol Endocrinol. 2008;41(4):195-203.
  144. Saad RS, Denning KL, Finkelstein SD, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic utility of molecular markers in synchronous bilateral breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(10):1200-1207.
  145. Krishnamurti U, Sasatomi E, Swalsky PA, et al. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in atypical and negative bile duct brushing cytology specimens with malignant outcome: Are 'negative' cytologic findings a representation of morphologically subtle molecular alterations? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(1):74-80.
  146. Khalid A, Nodit L, Zahid M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirate DNA analysis to differentiate malignant and benign pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(11):2493-2500.
  147. Maheshwari V, Tsung A, Lin Y, et al. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity for tumor-suppressor genes can accurately classify and predict the clinical behavior of mucinous tumors arising from the appendix. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(12):1610-1616. 
  148. Lapkus O, Gologan O, Liu Y, et al. Determination of sequential mutation accumulation in pancreas and bile duct brushing cytology. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(7):907-913. 
  149. Krishnamurti U, Sasatomi E, Swalsky PA, et al. Microdissection-based mutational genotyping of serous borderline tumors of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2005;24(1):56-61.
  150. American Cancer Society (ACS). Ovarian cancer has early symptoms. First national consensus on common warning signs. ACS News Center. Atlanta, GA: ACS; June 14, 2007. Available at: http://www.cancer.org. Accessed July 6, 2007.
  151. Berchuck A; Society for Gynecologic Oncologists. Ovarian cancer symptoms consensus statement. Chicago, IL: Society for Gynecologic Oncologists; 2007. Available at: http://www.sgo.org/publications/OvarianCancerSymptoms.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2007.
  152. Goff BA, Mandel LS, Melancon CH, Muntz HG. Frequency of symptoms of ovarian cancer in women presenting to primary care clinics. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705-2712.
  153. Daly MB, Ozols RF. Symptoms of ovarian cancer--where to set the bar? JAMA. 2004;291(22):2755-2756.
  154. Groskopf J, Aubin SM, Deras IL, et al. APTIMA PCA3 molecular urine test: Development of a method to aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Chem. 2006;52(6):1089-1095.
  155. Groskopf J, Nakanishi H, Deras IL, et al. The PCA3 score correlates with tumor volume but not prostate size, and can synergize with other patient information for predicting biopsy outcome. Abstrac 1709. Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association. Anaheim, CA; May 19-24, 2007. Available at: http://www.posters2view.com/aua07/view.php?nu=1709. Accessed August 21, 2007.
  156. van Gils MP, Hessels D, van Hooij O, et al The time-resolved fluorescence-based PCA3 test on urinary sediments after digital rectal examination; A Dutch multicenter validation of the diagnostic performance. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(3):939-943.
  157. Marks LS, Fradet Y, Deras IL, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology. 2007;69(3):532-535.
  158. Gene-Probe, Inc. Gen-Probe PCA3 assay. Package Insert. San Diego, CA: Gen-Probe; April 2007. Available at: http://www.tdlpathology.com/images/downloads/500614RevB-PCA3%20Assay%20PI.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2007.
  159. Haese A, Van Poppel H, Marberger M, et al. The value of the PCA3 assay in guiding decision which men with a negative prostate biopsy need immediate repeat biopsy: Preliminary European data. Abstract. 22nd Annual EAU Congress. Berlin, Germany; March 21-24, 2007. European Association of Urology Web site. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/publications/eau-abstracts-online/?AID=11696. Accessed August 19, 2007.
  160. National Horizon Scanning Center (NHSC). Prostate cancer gene 3 (Progensa PCA3) assay in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Horizon Scanning Technology Briefing. Birmingham, UK: NHSC; December 2006. Available at: http://pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/horizon/PDF_files/2006reports/December06
    /PCA3%20for%20diagnosis%20of%20prostate%20cancer.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2007.
  161. George B, Datar RH, Wu L, et al. p53 gene and protein status: The role of p53 alterations in predicting outcome in patients with bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(34):5352-5358.
  162. Real FX. p53: It has it all, but will it make it to the clinic as a marker in bladder cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(34):5341-5344.
  163. Parekh DJ, Ankerst DP, Troyer D, et al. Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2252-2259.
  164. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5287-5312.
  165. Svatek RS, Karam J, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Role of urinary cathepsin B and L in the detection of bladder urothelial cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2008;179(2):478-484; discussion 484.
  166. Marchionni L, Wilson RF, Wolff AC, et al. Systematic review: Gene expression profiling assays in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(5):358-369.
  167. Wolf I, Ben-Baruch N, Shapira-Frommer R, et al. Association between standard clinical and pathologic characteristics and the 21-gene recurrence score in breast cancer patients: A population-based study. Cancer. 2008;112(4):731-736. 
  168. Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network (ANZHSN). Genesearch™ breast lymph node (BLN) assay. Horizon Scanning Technology Prioritising Summaries. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing; May 2008. Available at:  http://www.health.gov.au/. Accessed August 12, 2008. 
  169. Blumencranz P, Whitworth PW, Deck K, et al. Scientific Impact Recognition Award. Sentinel node staging for breast cancer: intraoperative molecular pathology overcomes conventional histologic sampling errors. Am J Surg. 2007; 194(4):426-432.
  170. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Use of genesearch breast lymph node assay to detect sentinel node metastases in early stage breast cancer. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL:BCBSA; 2007; 22(8). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/22/22_08.html. Accessed August 12, 2008.
  171. U. S. Food and Drug Administration.  GeneSearch BLN Testkit. P060017. Rockville, MD: FDA. July 16, 2007. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf6/p060017a.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2008.
  172. U.S. Food and Drug Administration CDRH Consumer Information. Genesearch BLN Test Kit - P060017. Rockville, MD: FDA. August 3, 2007. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/MDA/DOCS/p060017.html. Accessed August 12, 2008.
  173. Viale G, Bosari S, Maxxarol G, et al. Intra-operative examination of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 1999; 85(11):2433-2438.
  174. Smeets A, Christiaens M. Implications of the sentinel lymph node procedure for local and systemic adjuvant treatment. Current Opinion in Oncology 2005; 17:539-544.
  175. Viale G, Dell'Orto P, Biasi MO, et al. Comparative evaluation of an extensive histopathologic examination and a real-time reverse-transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay for mammaglobin and cytokeratin 19 on axillary sentinel lymph nodes of breast carcinoma patients. Ann Surg. 2008;247(1):136-142.
  176. Julian TB, Blumencranz P, Deck K, et al. Novel intraoperative molecular test for sentinel lymph node metastases in patients with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(20):3338-3345.
  177. Visintin I, Feng Z, Longton G, et al. Diagnostic markers for early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(4):1065-1072.
  178. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO).. Statement regarding OvaSure. Chicago, IL: SGO; July 2, 2008. Available at: http://blog.targethealth.com/?p=1492. Accessed September 2, 2008.
  179. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH), Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OVID). Warning Letter to Laboratory Corporation of America. Rockville, MD: FDA; September 29, 2008. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s6947c.htm. Accessed October 9, 2008.
  180. Coradini D, Daidone MG. Biomolecular prognostic factors in breast cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2004;16(1):49-55.
  181. Provista Life Sciences. The BT test and early breast cancer detection [website]. Phoenix, AZ: Provista Life Sciences; 2008. Available at: http://www.provistals.com/BTTestOverview.aspx. Accessed September 8, 2008.
  182. Urban N, McIntosh MW, Andersen M, Karlan BY. Ovarian cancer screening. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2003;17(4):989-1005.
  183. Lu KH, Patterson AP, Wang L, et al. Selection of potential markers for epithelial ovarian cancer with gene expression arrays and recursive descent partition analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(10):3291-3300.
  184. Drapkin R, von Horsten HH, Lin Y, et al. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is a secreted glycoprotein that is overexpressed by serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res. 2005;65(6):2162-2169.
  185. Rosenthal AN, Menon U, Jacobs IJ. Screening for ovarian cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(3):433-447.
  186. Scholler N, Crawford M, Sato A, et al. Bead-based ELISA for validation of ovarian cancer early detection markers. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(7 Pt 1):2117-2124.
  187. Havrilesky LJ, Whitehead CM, Rubatt JM, et al. Evaluation of biomarker panels for early stage ovarian cancer detection and monitoring for disease recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(3):374-382.
  188. Lowe KA, Shah C, Wallace E, et al. Effects of personal characteristics on serum CA125, mesothelin, and HE4 levels in healthy postmenopausal women at high-risk for ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(9):2480-2487.
  189. Otchy D, Hyman NH, Simmang C, et al. Practice parameters for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(8):1269-1284.
  190. Compton CC. Pathology and prognostic determinants of colorectal cancer. UpToDate [online serial]. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; 2008.
  191. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Special Report: Pharmacogenomics of cancer-candidate genes.TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; November 2007;22(5). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/22/22_05.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2008.
  192. Duffy MJ, van Dalen A, Haglund C, et al. Tumour markers in colorectal cancer: European Group on Tumour Markers (EGTM) guidelines for clinical use. Eur J Cancer. 2007 Jun;43(9):1348-1360.
  193. Shankaran V, Wisinski KB, Mulcahy MF, et al. The role of molecular markers in predicting response to therapy in patients with colorectal cancer. Mol Diagn Ther. 2008;12(2):87-98.
  194. Welch S, Kocha RB, Rumble K, et al., Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group. Cancer Care Ontario. The role of bevacizumab (avastin) combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer: Guideline recommendations.  Evidence-based Series #2-25: Section 1. Toronto, ON: Cancer Care Ontario; May 2008.
  195. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Technology Appraisal Guidance 118. London, UK: NICE; January 2007. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA118. Accessed July 25, 2007.
  196. Secord AA, Darcy KM, Hutson A, et al; Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Co-expression of angiogenic markers and associations with prognosis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(1):221-232.
  197. Hellstrom I, Raycraft J, Hayden-Ledbetter M, et al. The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2003;63:3695. 
  198. Hellstrom I, Hellstrom KE. SMRP and HE4 as biomarkers for ovarian carcinoma when used alone and in combination with CA125 and/or each other. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008;622:15-21
  199. Moore RG, Brown AK, Miller MC, et al. The use of multiple novel tumor biomarkers for the detection of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108(2):402-408.
  200. Bast RC Jr, Brewer M, Zou C, et al. Prevention and early detection of ovarian cancer: Mission impossible? Recent Results Cancer Res. 2007;174:91-100. 
  201. Scholler N, Crawford M, Sato A, et al. Bead-based ELISA for validation of ovarian cancer early detection markers. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(7 Pt 1):2117-2124.
  202. Adams JM, Cory S. The Bcl-2 apoptotic switch in cancer development and therapy. Oncogene. 2007;26:1324-1337.
  203. Salgia R. Molecular markers in non-small cell lung cancer. Waltham, MA; UpToDate [online serial]; 2008.
  204. Reed JC. Bcl-2-family proteins and hematologic malignancies: history and future prospects. Blood. 2008;111(7):3322-3330.
  205. Bos JL. Ras oncogenes in human cancer: A review. Cancer Res. 1989;49(17):4682-4689.
  206. Lièvre A, Bachet JB, Le Corre D, et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66(8):3992-3995.
  207. Di Fiore F, Blanchard F, Charbonnier F, et al. Clinical relevance of KRAS mutation detection in metastatic colorectal cancer treated by Cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(8):1166-1169.
  208. De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J, et al. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(3):508-515.
  209. Lièvre A, Bachet JB, Boige V, et al. KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(3):374-379.
  210. Moroni M, Veronese S, Benvenuti S, et al. Gene copy number for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and clinical response to antiEGFR treatment in colorectal cancer: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(5):279-286.
  211. Gonçalves A, Esteyries S, Taylor-Smedra B, et al. A polymorphism of EGFR extracellular domain is associated with progression free-survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving cetuximab-based treatment. BMC Cancer. 2008;8(169). Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/8/169.  Accessed October 16, 2008.
  212. Van Cutsem E, Lang I., D'haens G., et al. KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: The CRYSTAL experience. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26: Abstr. 2. Available at: http://www.asco.org/ASCO/Abstracts+%26+Virtual+Meeting/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=55&abstractID=34491. Accessed October 16, 2008.
  213. Linardou H, Dahabreh IJ, Kanaloupiti D, et al. Assessment of somatic k-RAS mutations as a mechanism associated with resistance to EGFR-targeted agents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(10):962-972.
  214. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartmann J, et al. KRAS status and efficacy of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: (May 20 Suppl; Abstr. 4000). Available at: http://www.asco.org/ASCO/Abstracts+%26+Virtual+Meeting/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=55&abstractID=35260. Accessed October 16, 2008.
  215. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(10):1626-1634.
  216. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). KRAS mutations and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; January 2009;25(6). 
  217. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Special report: Recent developments in prostate cancer genetics and genetic testing. TEC Assessments in Press. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; September 2008.
  218. Nielsen KV, Ejlertsen B, Møller S, et al. The value of TOP2A gene copy number variation as a biomarker in breast cancer: Update of DBCG trial 89D. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(4):725-734.
  219. Järvinen TA, Liu ET. Simultaneous amplification of HER-2 (ERBB2) and topoisomerase IIalpha (TOP2A) genes--molecular basis for combination chemotherapy in cancer. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2006;6(7):579-602.
  220. Pritchard KI, Messersmith H, Elavathil L, et al. HER-2 and topoisomerase II as predictors of response to chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(5):736-744.
  221. Järvinen TA, Liu ET. Simultaneous amplification of HER-2 (ERBB2) and topoisomerase IIalpha (TOP2A) genes--molecular basis for combination chemotherapy in cancer. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2006;6(7):579-602.
  222. Everhard S, Kaloshi G, Crinière E, et al. MGMT methylation: A marker of response to temozolomide in low-grade gliomas. Ann Neurol. 2006;60(6):740-743.
  223. Palanichamy K, Erkkinen M, Chakravarti A. Predictive and prognostic markers in human glioblastomas. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2006;7(6):490-504.
  224. van den Bent MJ, Kros JM. Predictive and prognostic markers in neuro-oncology. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2007;66(12):1074-1081.
  225. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Gilbert MR, et al. Chemoradiotherapy in malignant glioma: standard of care and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(26):4127-4136.
  226. Murat A, Migliavacca E, Gorlia T, et al. Stem cell-related "self-renewal" signature and high epidermal growth factor receptor expression associated with resistance to concomitant chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(18):3015-3024.
  227. Secord AA, Darcy KM, Hutson A, et al. Co-expression of angiogenic markers and associations with prognosis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(1):221-232.
  228. Ghoneim C, Soula-Rothhut M, Rothhut B. Thrombospondin-1 in differentiated thyroid cancer: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Connect Tissue Res. 2008;49(3):257-260.
  229. Brostjan C, Gebhardt K, Gruenberger B, et al. Neoadjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer with bevacizumab: the perioperative angiogenic balance is sensitive to systemic thrombospondin-1 levels. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(7):2065-2074.
  230. Garcia AA, Hirte H, Fleming G, et al. Phase II clinical trial of bevacizumab and low-dose metronomic oral cyclophosphamide in recurrent ovarian cancer: A trial of the California, Chicago, and Princess Margaret Hospital phase II consortia. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(1):76-82.
  231. List AF, Spier CM. Multidrug resistance in acute leukemia: A conserved physiologic function. Leuk Lymphoma. 1992;8(1-2):9-14.
  232. Yuen AR, Sikic BI. Multidrug resistance in lymphomas. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(11):2453-2459.
  233. Solary E, Drenou B, Campos L, et al; Groupe Ouest Est Leucémies Aiguës Myéloblastiques. Quinine as a multidrug resistance inhibitor: A phase 3 multicentric randomized study in adult de novo acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2003;15;102(4):1202-1210.
  234. Gruber A, Björkholm M, Brinch L, et al. A phase I/II study of the MDR modulator Valspodar (PSC 833) combined with daunorubicin and cytarabine in patients with relapsed and primary refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. 2003;27(4):323-328.
  235. Takara K, Sakaeda T, Okumura K. An update on overcoming MDR1-mediated multidrug resistance in cancer chemotherapy. Curr Pharm Des. 2006;12(3):273-286.
  236. Miyake M, Nakano K, Ieki Y, et al. Motility related protein 1 (MRP-1/CD9) expression: inverse correlation with metastases in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1995;55(18):4127-4131.
  237. Erovic BM, Pammer J, Hollemann D, et al. Motility-related protein-1/CD9 expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma Head Neck. 2003;25(10):848-857.
  238. Mimori K, Kataoka A, Yoshinaga K, et al. Identification of molecular markers for metastasis-related genes in primary breast cancer cells. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2005;22(1):59-67.
  239. Mhawech P, Dulguerov P, Tschanz E, et al. Motility-related protein-1 (MRP-1/CD9) expression can predict disease-free survival in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(2):471-475.
  240. Mhawech P, Herrmann F, Coassin M, et al. Motility-related protein 1 (MRP-1/CD9) expression in urothelial bladder carcinoma and its relation to tumor recurrence and progression. Cancer. 2003;98(8):1649-1657.
  241. National Cancer Institute. Carcinoma of unknown primary treatment (PDQ®). Bethesda, MD: NCI; 2008. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/unknownprimary. Accessed October 13, 2008.
  242. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA clears test that helps identify type of cancer in tumor sample. FDA News. Rockville, MD: FDA; July 31, 2008. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01870.html. Accessed October 13, 2008.
  243. Dumur CI, Lyons-Weiler M, Sciulli C, et al. Interlaboratory performance of a microarray-based gene expression test to determine tissue of origin in poorly differentiated and undifferentiated cancers. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10(1):67-77.
  244. Pathwork Diagnostics [website]. Announcing the pathwork tissue of origin test [website]; Sunnyvale, CA. Available at: http://www.pathworkdx.com/index.html.  Accessed October 13, 2008.
  245. Monzon FA, Dumur CI, Lyons-Weiler M, et al. Validation of a gene expression-based tissue of origin test applied to poorly differentiated and undifferentiated cancers. Abstract presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Association for Molecular Pathology, Los Angeles, CA, November 7-10, 2007.
  246. Flynn K. Bladder cancer surveillance. Brief Overview. Final Report. Boston, MA: Veterans Health Administration, Office of Patient Care Services, Technology Assessment Program; November 2007.
  247. Nauseef WM, Olsson I, Arnljots K. Biosynthesis and processing of myeloperoxidase--a marker for myeloid cell differentiation. Eur J Haematol. 1988;40(2):97-110.
  248. Storr J, Dolan G, Coustan-Smith E, et al. Value of monoclonal anti-myeloperoxidase (MPO7) for diagnosing acute leukaemia. J Clin Pathol. 1990;43(10):847-849.
  249. Dunphy CH, Polski JM, Evans HL, Gardner LJ. Evaluation of bone marrow specimens with acute myelogenous leukemia for CD34,CD15, CD117, and myeloperoxidase. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125(8):1063-1069.
  250. Vardiman JW, Harris NL, Brunning RD. The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the myeloid neoplasms. Blood. 2002;100(7):2292-2302.
  251. Matsuo T, Kuriyama K, Miyazaki Y, et al. The percentage of myeloperoxidase-positive blast cells is a strong independent prognostic factor in acute myeloid leukemia, even in the patients with normal karyotype. Leukemia. 2003;17:1538-1543.
  252. British Committee for Standards in Haematology, Milligan DW, Grimwade D, Cullis JO, et al. Guidelines on the management of acute myeloid leukaemia in adults. Br J Haematol. 2006;135(4):450-474.
  253. Storr J, Dolan G, Coustan-Smith E, et al. Value of monoclonal anti-myeloperoxidase (MPO7) for diagnosing acute leukaemia. J Clin Pathol. 1990;43(10):847-849.
  254. British Committee for Standards in Haematology, Milligan DW, Grimwade D, Cullis JO, et al. Guidelines on the management of acute myeloid leukaemia in adults. Br J Haematol. 2006;135(4):450-474.
  255. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Acute myeloid leukemia. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.1.2009. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; September 2008. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/aml.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2009.
  256. Liebman HA, Furie BC, Tong MJ, et al. Des-gamma-carboxy (abnormal) prothrombin as a serum marker of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. NEJM. 1984;310(22):1427-1431.
  257. Fujiyama S, Izuno K, Gohshi K, et al. Clinical usefulness of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin assay in early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci. 1991;36(12):1787-1792.
  258. Weitz IC; Liebman HA. Des-gamma-carboxy (abnormal) prothrombin and hepatocellular carcinoma: A critical review. Hepatology. 1993;18(4):990-997.
  259. Nomura F, Ishijima M, Horikoshi A, et al. Determination of serum des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin levels in patients with small-sized hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison of the conventional enzyme immunoassay and two modified methods. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91(7):1380-1383.
  260. Aoyagi Y, Oguro M, Yanagi M, et al. Clinical significance of simultaneous determinations of alpha-fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin in monitoring recurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 1996;77(9):1781-1786.
  261. Hamamura K, Shiratori Y, Shiina S, et al. Unique clinical characteristics of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who present with high plasma des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin and low serum alpha-fetoprotein. Cancer. 2000;88(7):1557-1564.
  262. Ikoma J, Kaito M, Ishihara T, et al. Early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using a sensitive assay for serum des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin: A prospective study. Hepatogastroenterology. 2002;49(43):235-238.
  263. Nagaoka S, Yatsuhashi H, Hamada H, et al. The des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin index is a new prognostic indicator for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;98(12):2671-2677.
  264. Yuan LW, Tang W, Kokudo N, et al. Measurement of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin levels in cancer and non-cancer tissue in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2004;12(2):269-273.
  265. Yuen MF, Lai CL. Serological markers of liver cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;19(1):91-99.
  266. Nakamura S, Nouso K, Sakaguchi K, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin for diagnosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinomas varies according to tumor size. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(9):2038-2043.
  267. Toyoda H, Kumada T, Kiriyama S, et al. Prognostic significance of simultaneous measurement of three tumor markers in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4(1):111-117.
  268. Shirabe K, Itoh S, Yoshizumi T, et al. The predictors of microvascular invasion in candidates for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma-with special reference to the serum levels of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin. J Surg Oncol. 2007;95(3):235-340.
  269. Schwartz JM, Carithers RL. Clinical features and diagnosis of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. UpToDate [online serial]. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; 2008.
  270. Sherman M. Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease. UpToDate [online serial]. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; 2008.
  271. Taylor CR. Cirrhosis. eMedicine Medicine Topic 175. Omaha, NE: eMedicine.com. January 7, 2009. Available at: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/366426-overview. Accessed January 13, 2009.
  272. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Hepatobiliary cancers. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.1.2010. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2010.
  273. Lüftner D, Possinger K. Nuclear matrix proteins as biomarkers for breast cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2002;2(1):23-31.
  274. Wright T, McGechan A. Breast cancer: New technologies for risk assessment and diagnosis. Mol Diagn. 2003;7(1):49-55.
  275. Matritech, Inc. [website]. Newton, MA; Matritech; 2009. Available at: http://www.matritech.com/. Accessed on January 27, 2009.
  276. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Occult primary. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.1.2009. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; July 2008.
  277. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al. Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(17):3628-3636.
  278. National Cancer Institute. Hormone therapy with or without combination chemotherapy in treating women who have undergone surgery for node-negative breast cancer (the TAILORx Trial). ClinicalTrials.gov ID. NCT00310180. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine; updated August 11, 2009.
  279. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1757-1765.
  280. Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: Testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2091-2096.
  281. Marchionni L, Wilson RF, Marinopoulos SS, et al. Impact of gene expression profiling on breast cancer outcomes. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 160. Prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). AHRQ Publication No. 08-E002. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; January 2008.
  282. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: Can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genet Med. 2009;11(1):66-73.
  283. de Boer M, van Deurzen CH, van Dijck JA, et al. Micrometastases or isolated tumor cells and the outcome of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(7):653-663.
  284. Goodman S, Dickerson K, Wilson R. Gene expression profile tests for early-stage breast cancer. Effectiveness Guidance Document: Methodological Guidance for the Design of Comparative Effectiveness Studies. Version 1.0. Baltimore, MD: Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP); June 2009.
  285. Kawai M, Uchiyama K, Tani M, et al. Clinicopathological features of malignant intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas: The differential diagnosis from benign entities. Arch Surg. 2004;139(2):188-192.
  286. Donovan MJ, Hamann S, Clayton M, et al. Systems pathology approach for the prediction of prostate cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(24):3923-3929.
  287. Klein EA, Stephenson AJ, Raghavan D, Dreicer R. Systems pathology and predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(24):3916-3917.
  288. Shen J, Brugge WR, Dimaio CJ, Pitman MB. Molecular analysis of pancreatic cyst fluid: A comparative analysis with current practice of diagnosis. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009;117(3):217-227.
  289. Leung KK, Ross WA, Evans D, et al. Pancreatic cystic neoplasm: The role of cyst morphology, cyst fluid analysis, and expectant management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(10):2818-2824.
  290. Sutcliffe P, Hummel S, Simpson E, et al. Use of classical and novel biomarkers as prognostic risk factors for localised prostate cancer: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(5):iii, xi-xiii 1-219.
  291. Gelmann EP, Henshall SM. Clinically relevant prognostic markers for prostate cancer: The search goes on. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):647-649.
  292. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Kettermann A, et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J Urol. 2010;183(2):534-538.
  293. Noon AP, Vlatković N, Polański R, et al. p53 and MDM2 in renal cell carcinoma: Biomarkers for disease progression and future therapeutic targets? Cancer. 2010;116(4):780-790.
  294. Knauer M, Mook S, Rutgers EJ, et al. The predictive value of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(3):655-661.
  295. Fung ET. A recipe for proteomics diagnostic test development: the OVA1 test,
    from biomarker discovery to FDA clearance. Clin Chem. 2010;56(2):327-329.
  296. Trikalinos TA, Terasawa T, Raman G, et al. A systematic review of loss-of-heterozygosity based topographic genotyping with PathfinderTG. Technology Assessment Report. Project ID: GEND0308. Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10055 I. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; March 1, 2010.
  297. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diagnosis and management of metastatic malignant disease of unknown primary origin. Clinical Guideline. Draft for Consultation. London, UK: NICE; December 2009.
  298. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Occult primary (cancer of unknown primary [CUP]). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.1.2010. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2010.
  299. Ring BZ, Seitz RS, Beck R, et al. Novel prognostic immunohistochemical biomarker panel for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(19):3039-3047.
  300. 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):6602-6609.
  301. Cohen SJ, Punt CJ, Iannotti N, et al. Relationship of circulating tumor cells to tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3213-3221.
  302. De Giorgi U, Valero V, Rohren E, et al. Circulating tumor cells and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for outcome prediction in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(20):3303-3311.
  303. Mejia A, Schulz S, Hyslop T, et al. GUCY2C reverse transcriptase PCR to stage pN0 colorectal cancer patients. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009;9(8):777-785.
  304. Pénzváltó Z, Mihály Z, Gyorffy B. Gene expression based multigene prognostic and predictive tests in breast cancer. Magy Onkol. 2009;53(4):351-359.
  305. Bartlett JM, Thomas J, Ross DT, et al. Mammostrat as a tool to stratify breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence during endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(4):R47.
  306. Boyle P, Chapman CJ, Holdenrieder S, et al. Clinical validation of an autoantibody test for lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(2):383-389.
  307. Murray A, Chapman CJ, Healey G, et al. Technical validation of an autoantibody test for lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(8):1687-1693.
  308. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Lung cancer screening: Recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(9):738-739.
  309. Humphrey LL, Teutsch S, Johnson M; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Lung cancer screening with sputum cytologic examination, chest radiography, and computed tomography: An update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(9):740-753.
  310. Gradishar WJ. Male breast cancer. UpToDate [online serial]. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; 2010.
  311. Shak S. Palmer G, Baehner FL, et al; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. Molecular characterization of male breast cancer by standardized quantitative RT-PCR analysis: First large genomic study of 347 male breast cancers compared to 82,434 female breast cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:15s (suppl; abstr 549).
  312. Monzon FA, Lyons-Weiler M, Buturovic LJ, et al. Multicenter validation of a 1,550-gene expression profile for identification of tumor tissue of origin. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15):2503-2508.
  313. Yurkovetsky Z, Skates S, Lomakin A, et al. Development of a multimarker assay for early detection of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2159-2166.
  314. Muller CY. Doctor, should I get this new ovarian cancer test-OVA1? Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):246-247.
  315. Monzon FA, Koen TJ. Diagnosis of metastatic neoplasms: molecular approaches for identification of tissue of origin. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(2):216-224.
  316. Anderson GG, Weiss LM. Determining tissue of origin for metastatic cancers: Meta-analysis and literature review of immunohistochemistry performance. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;18(1):3-8.
  317. Messick CA, Sanchez J, Dejulius KL, et al. CEACAM-7: A predictive marker for rectal cancer recurrence. Surgery. 2010;147(5):713-719.
  318. Castro MA, Dal-Pizzol F, Zdanov S, et al. CFL1 expression levels as a prognostic and drug resistance marker in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(15):3645-3655.
  319. Shanmugam C, Jhala NC, Katkoori VR, et al. Prognostic value of mucin 4 expression in colorectal adenocarcinomas. Cancer. 2010;116(15):3577-3586.
  320. Ratner E, Lu L, Boeke M, et al. A KRAS-variant in ovarian cancer acts as a genetic marker of cancer risk. Cancer Res. 2010;70(16):6509-6515.
  321. Hollestelle A, Pelletier C, Hooning M, et al. Prevalence of the variant allele rs61764370 T>G in the 3'UTR of KRAS among Dutch BRCA1, BRCA2 and non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128(1):79-84.
  322. Cocco E, Bellone S, El-Sahwi K, et al. Serum amyloid A: A novel biomarker for endometrial cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(4):843-851.
  323. Park CM, Lee WY, Chun HK, et al. Relationship of polymorphism of the tandem repeat sequence in the thymidylate synthase gene and the survival of stage III colorectal cancer patients receiving adjuvant 5-flurouracil-based chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(1):22-27.
  324. Sumi T, Katsumata K, Tsuchida A, et al. Correlations of clinicopathological factors with protein expression levels of thymidylate synthase, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and orotate phosphoribosyltransferase in colorectal cancer. Chemotherapy. 2010;56(2):120-126.
  325. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Gene expression profiling for women with lymph-node-positive breast cancer to select adjuvant chemotherapy treatment. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; November 2010;25(1).
  326. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al; Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. 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. 2010;11(1):55-65.
  327. No authors listed. Committee opinion no. 477: The role of the obstetrician-gynecologist in the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):742-746.
  328. 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. J Oncol Practice. 2011;7(2):94-99.
  329. Cohen SJ, Punt CJ, Iannotti N, et al. Relationship of circulating tumor cells to tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3213-3221.
  330. De Giorgi U, Valero V, Rohren E, et al. Circulating tumor cells and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for outcome prediction in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(20):3303-3311.
  331. Gunven P, Randén M, Elmberger G, et al. Gene expression profiling guiding diagnosis and therapy of rare mammary-like anogenital gland carcinomas. Med Oncol. 2012;29(1):127-132.
  332. Gevensleben H, Gohring UJ, Buttner R, et al. Comparison of MammaPrint and TargetPrint results with clinical parameters in German patients with early stage breast cancer. Int J Mol Med. 2010;26(6):837-843.
  333. Roepman P, Horlings HM, Krijgsman O, et al. Microarray-based determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptor status in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(22):7003-7011.
  334. Von Hoff DD, Stephenson JJ Jr, Rosen P, et al. Pilot study using molecular profiling of patients' tumors to find potential targets and select treatments for their refractory cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(33):4877-4883.
  335. Doroshow JH. Selecting systemic cancer therapy one patient at a time: Is there a role for molecular profiling of individual patients with advanced solid tumors? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(33):4869-4876.
  336. Dutch College of Health Insurances (CvZ). Genexpressietest Mammaprint bij de behandeling van het mammacarcinoom. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CvZ; October 29, 2010.
  337. Smartt P. A comparison of gene expression profiling tests for breast cancer. A systematic review update. HSAC Report. Christchurch, New Zealand; Health Services Assessment Collaboration (HSAC); November 2009;3 (16).
  338. Tice JA. The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) as a guide for the management of early stage breast cancer. Technology Assessment. San Francisco, CA: California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF); June 2, 2010.
  339. Sarbia M, Borchard F, Hengels KJ. Histogenetical investigations on adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. An immunohistochemical study. Pathol Res Pract. 1993;189(5):530-535.
  340. Deeb G, Wang J, Ramnath N, et al. Altered E-cadherin and epidermal growth factor receptor expressions are associated with patient survival in lung cancer: A study utilizing high-density tissue microarray and immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(4):430-439.
  341. Murray NP, Calaf GM, Badinez L, et al. P504S expressing circulating prostate cells as a marker for prostate cancer. Oncol Rep. 2010;24(3):687-692.
  342. Aureon Laboratories, Inc. Aureon Laboratories announces name change for existing post-surgical prostate cancer recurrence test commercially available since February 2006, Post-Op Px(TM) is the first diagnostic test to predict prostate cancer recurrence. March 5, 2010, GlobeNewswire. Nasdaz Omx. Available at: http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=185946. Accessed December 9, 2011.
  343. Ellis PM, Blais N, Soulieres D, et al. A systematic review and Canadian consensus recommendations on the use of biomarkers in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(8):1379-1391.
  344. Gray RG, Quirke P, Handley K, et al. Validation study of a quantitative multigene reverse transcriptase-polynmerase chain reaction assay for assessment of recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1-13.
  345. Juntermanns B, Kaiser GM, Reis H, et al. Klatskin-mimicking lesions: Still a diagnostical and therapeutical dilemma? Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58(106):265-269.
  346. Kumaresan K, Kakkar N, Verma A, et al. Diagnostic utility of α-methylacyl CoA racemase (P504S) & HMWCK in morphologically difficult prostate cancer. Diagn Pathol. 2010;22(5):83.
  347. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.2.2011. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; May, 2011. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site.  Accessed: December 2, 2011.
  348. Sinakos E, Saenger AK, Keach J, et al. Many patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and increased serum levels of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 do not have cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(5):434-439.
  349. Yoshida A, Tsuta K, Nitta H, et al. Bright-field dual-color chromogenic in situ hybridization for diagnosing echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive lung adenocarcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(8):1226-1234.
  350. Ueland, FR, Desimone, CP, Seamon LG, et al. Effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in the preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(6):1289-1297.
  351. Ware, MR, Smith, A, DeSimone CP, et al. Performance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' ovarian tumor referral guidelines with a multivariate index assay. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(6):1298-1306.
  352. Febbo, PG, Ladanyi, M, Aldape, KD, et al.  NCCN Task Force Report: Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Tumor Markers in Oncology. J Natl Compre Canc Netw. 2011;9:S1-S31.
  353. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Breast cancer. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Version 2.2011. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2011.
  354. Adelstein BA, Dobbins TA, Harris CA, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of KRAS status as the determinant of response to anti-EGFR antibodies and the impact of partner chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(9):1343-1354.
  355. Ellis PM, Blais N, Soulieres D, et al. A systematic review and Canadian consensus recommendations on the use of biomarkers in the treatment of
    non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(8):1379-1391.
  356. Nair VS, Maeda LS, Ioannidis JP. Clinical outcome prediction by microRNAs in human cancer: A systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(7):528-540.
  357. Raman G, Wallace B, Patel K, et al. Update on horizon scans of genetic tests currently available for clinical use in cancers. Technology Assessment Report. Final Report. Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under contract no. HHSA 290-2007-10055-I. Project ID: GEND0508. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; April 15, 2011.
  358. Sanz-Pamplona R, Berenguer A, Cordero D, et al. Clinical value of prognosis gene expression signatures in colorectal cancer: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48877.
  359. Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, Kedika R, et al. EUS-guided pancreatic fluid aspiration for DNA analysis of KRAS and GNAS mutations for the evaluation of pancreatic cystic neoplasia: A pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(4):669-670.
  360. Finkelstein SD, Bibbo M, Loren DE, et al. Molecular analysis of centrifugation supernatant fluid from
    pancreaticobiliary duct samples can improve cancer detection. Acta Cytol. 2012;56(4):439-447.
  361. Lin X, Zhu B, Finkelstein SD, et al. Significance of loss of heterozygosity in predicting axillary lymph node metastasis of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2012;20(2):116-123.
  362. Ellsworth EM, Palma JF, Spence WC, et al. Mutational profiling of sporadic versus toxin-associated brain cancer formation: Initial findings using loss of heterozygosity profiling. Int J Hyg Environ
    Health. 2012;215(3):427-433.
  363. Hainsworth JD, Rubin MS, Spigel DR, et al. Molecular gene expression profiling to predict the tissue of origin and direct site-specific therapy in patients With carcinoma of unknown primary site: A prospective trial of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(2):217-223.
  364. Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retèl VP, et al. A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer. 2013 Jan 31.[Epub ahead of print]
  365. Bradley LA, Palomaki G, Gutman S, et al. PCA3 testing for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 98. Prepared by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10058-I). AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC030-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); April 2013.
  366. Little J, Wilson B, Carter R, et al. Multigene panels in prostate cancer risk assessment. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 209. Prepared by the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Contract No. 290-2007-10060-1. AHRQ Publication No. 12-E020-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2012.
  367. Alberts SR, Yu T, Behrens RJ, et al. Real-world comparative economics of a 12-gene assay for prognosis in stage II colon cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl 34):Abstract 391.
  368. Srivastava G, Renfro LA, Behrens RJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of a 12-gene assay on treatment recommendations in patients with stage II colon cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl 34):Abstract 453.
  369. Venook AP, Niedzwiecki D, Lopatin M, et al. Biologic determinants of tumor recurrence in stage II colon cancer: Validation study of the 12-gene recurrence score in cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB) 9581. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print]
  370. National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC). UPDATED: OVA1™ test for the assessment of suspected ovarian cancer. Horizon Scanning Review. Birmingham, UK: National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC); 2012.
  371. National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC). UPDATED: RealTime mS9 Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Assay for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Horizon Scanning Review. Birmingham, UK: National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC); 2012.
  372. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Diagnosis and management of metastatic malignant disease of unknown primary origin. Developed for NICE. July 2010. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13044/49864/49864.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2013.
  373. Alberta Provincial Thoracic Tumour Team. Non-small cell lung cancer stage IV. Clinical Practice Guideline No. LU-004. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Health Services, Cancer Care; June 2011. 
  374. Gao G, Ren S, Li A, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy is effective as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR: A meta-analysis from six phase III randomized controlled trials. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(5):E822-E829.
  375. Krijgsman O, Roepman P, Zwart W, et al. A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):37-47.
  376. Trock BJ, Brotzman MJ, Mangold LA, et al. Evaluation of GSTP1 and APC methylation as indicators for repeat biopsy in a high-risk cohort of men with negative initial prostate biopsies. BJU Int. 2012;110(1):56-62.
  377. BlueCross BluShield Association (BCBSA). Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Multi-analyte testing for the evaluation of adnexal masses. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; 2013. Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/press/multi-analyte-testing-for-the.html. Accessed March 29, 2013.
  378. Yu D, Shi J, Sun T, et al. Pharmacogenetic role of ERCC1 genetic variants in treatment response of platinum-based chemotherapy among advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. Tumour Biol. 2012;33(3):877-884.
  379. Wang Z, Chen JQ, Liu JL, et al. Polymorphisms in ERCC1, GSTs, TS and MTHFR predict clinical outcomes of gastric cancer patients treated with platinum/5-Fu-based chemotherapy: A systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:137.
  380. Gong W, Zhang X, Wu J, et al. RRM1 expression and clinical outcome of gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;75(3):374-380.
  381. Friboulet L, Olaussen KA, Pignon JP, et al. ERCC1 isoform expression and DNA repair in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(12):1101-1110.
  382. Besse B, Olaussen KA, Soria JC. ERCC1 and RRM1: Ready for prime time? J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(8):1050-1060.
  383. Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. Last reviewed February 2013. UpToDate Inc. Waltham, MA.
  384. Collins LC, Laronga C, Wong JS. Ductal carcinoma in situ: Treatment and prognosis. Last reviewed February 2013. UpToDate Inc. Waltham, MA.
  385. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast cancer (Version 2.2013). NCCN: Fort Washington: PA.
  386. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Multiple myeloma (Version 2.2013). NCCN: Fort Washington: PA.
  387. Oxnard GR, Binder A, Jänne PA. New targetable oncogenes in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(8):1097-1104.
  388. Shin SJ, Hwang JW, Ahn JB, et al. Circulating vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2/pAkt-positive cells as a functional pharmacodynamic marker in metastatic colorectal cancers treated with antiangiogenic agent. Invest New Drugs. 2013;31(1):1-13.
  389. Yu Z, Li Z, Cai B, et al. Association between the GSTP1 Ile105Val polymorphism and prostate cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 2013 34(3):1855-1863.
  390. Janku F, Wheler JJ, Hong DS, Kurzrock R. Bevacizumab-based treatment in colorectal cancer with a NRAS Q61K mutation. Target Oncol. 2013 Feb 12. [Epub ahead of print]
  391. Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al.; American Society of Clinical Oncology. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(7):961-965.
  392. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Special report: Multiple molecular testing of cancers to identify targeted therapies. TEC Assessments in Press. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; February 2013.
  393. Meleth S, Whitehead N, Swinson T, Lux L. Technology assessment on genetic testing or molecular pathology testing of cancers with unknown primary site to determine origin. Technology Assessment Report. Final. Prepared by RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under contract no. HHSA290200710057I #8. Project ID: CANU5011. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; February 20, 2013. 
  394. Deverka P, Messner D, Dutta T. Evaluation of clinical validity and clinical utility of actionable molecular diagnostic tests in adult oncology. Effectiveness Guidance Document. Baltimore, MD: Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP); 2013.
  395. Andreopoulou E, Yee H, Warycha MA, et al. Mucinous cancer of the appendix: challenges in diagnosis and treatment. J Chemother. 2007;19(4):451-454.
  396. Carmignani CP, Sugarbaker PH. Synchronous extraperitoneal and intraperitoneal dissemination of appendix cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004a;30(8):864-868.
  397. Carmignani CP, Hampton R, Sugarbaker CE, et al. Utility of CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers in diagnosis and prognostic assessment of mucinous epithelial cancers of the appendix. J Surg Oncol. 2004b;87(4):162-166.
  398. Rasamny JJ, Allak A, Krook KA, et al. Cyclin D1 and FADD as biomarkers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;146(6):923-31.
  399. O'Sullivan P, Sharples K, Dalphin M, et al. A multigene urine test for the detection and stratification of bladder cancer in patients presenting with hematuria. J Urol. 2012;188(3):741-747.
  400. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. DG10 gene expression profiling and expanded immunohistochemistry tests for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer management: MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, IHC4 and Mammostrat: Guidance. NICE: London, UK. September 2013. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/DG10/Guidance/pdf/English. Accessed January 7, 2014.
  401. Lotan Y, Choueiri TK. Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and staging of bladder cancer. Last reviewed December 2013. UpToDate Inc., Waltham, MA.
  402. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guideline: Bladder cancer. Version 1.2014. NCCN: Fort Washington, PA.
  403. Delahaye LJM, Wehkamp D, Floore AN, et al. Performance characteristics of the MammaPrint breast cancer diagnostic gene signature. Personalized Medicine. 2013;10(8):801.
  404. Sapino A, Roepman P, Linn SC, et al.  MammaPrint molecular diagnostics on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. J Mol Diagn. 2014;16(2):190-197.


email this page   


Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna 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 Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.
Aetna
Back to top