This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVE: Biomarkers uPA and PAI-1 are guideline recommended by ASCO (USA) and AGO (Germany) in primary breast cancer to avoid unnecessary CTX in patients at medium risk for recurrence. For clinical quality assurance of uPA/PAI-1 testing, analysis of test-therapy concordance was performed. METHODS: Prospective non-interventional multi-center study over 2 years among six Certified Breast Centers in Germany to investigate uPA/PAI-1 results in consecutive decision making for tumor board recommendation and actual therapy in uninfluenced clinical setting. Concordance and discordance rates of uPA/PAI-1 testing were calculated and individual reasons for decision making analyzed. RESULTS: Among n = 93 uPA/PAI-1 tests evaluated n = 42/93 (45.2%) were uPA + PAI-1 negative and n = 51/93 (54.8%) uPA and/or PAI-1 positive. In uPA + PAI-1 negative test results in n = 35/42 (83.3%) CTX was avoided as recommended. But in n = 7/42 (16.7%) CTX was performed despite, resulting in over treatment. In uPA and/or PAI-1 positive test results in n = 26/51 (51.0%) CTX was performed but in n = 25/51 (49.0%) not despite recommendation for CTX which is under treatment. The conformity of uPA/PAI-1 test result vs. tumor board decision was n = 73/93 (78.5%). The overall concordance of uPA/PAI-1 test result vs. consecutive therapy was n = 61/93 (65.6%). A variety of reasons for individual result-deviating decisions were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical quality assurance of uPA/PAI-1 biomarker testing showed inconsistency of test results with consecutive tumor board decision and/or final therapy performed in up to 1/3 of patients. To close this clinical quality gap in application of uPA/PAI-1 biomarkers, individual analysis of deviations is suggested with process optimization accordingly.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacobs et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: