Tolerance and Relative Utility: Two Proposed Indices for Comparing Change in Clinical Measurement Noise Between Different Populations (Repeatability) or Measurement Methods (Agreement).

Reaching a consensus in terms of interchangeability and utility (i.e., disease detection/monitoring) of a medical device is the eventual aim of repeatability and agreement studies. The aim of the tolerance and relative utility indices described in this report is to provide a methodology to compare change in clinical measurement noise between different populations (repeatability) or measurement methods (agreement), so as to highlight problematic areas. No longitudinal data are required to calculate these indices. Both indices establish a metric of least to most effected across all parameters to facilitate comparison. If validated, these indices may prove useful tools when combining reports and forming the consensus required in the validation process for software updates and new medical devices.

Clinical utility of a molecular test in adjuvant treatment decision making in women with endocrine-sensitive early stage breast cancer: a retrospective, single center one year experience

Background. Molecular tests for breast cancer (BC) risk assessment are reimbursed by health insurances in Switzerland since the beginning of year 2015. The main current role of these tests is to help oncologists to decide about the usefulness of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early stage endocrine-sensitive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative BC. These gene expression signatures aim at predicting the risk of recurrence in this subgroup. One of them (OncotypeDx/OT) also predicts distant metastases rate with or without the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy to endocrine therapy. The clinical utility of these tests -in addition to existing so-called "clinico-pathological" prognostic and predictive criteria (e.g. stage, grade, biomarkers status)-is still debated. We report a single center one year experience of the use of one molecular test (OT) in clinical decision making. Methods. We extracted from the CHUV Breast Cancer Center data base the total number of BC cases with estrogen-receptor positive (ER+), HER2-negative early breast cancer (node negative (pN0) disease or micrometastases in up to 3 lymph nodes) operated between September 2014 and August 2015. For the cases from this group in which a molecular test had been decided by the tumor board, we collected the clinicopathologic parameters, the initial tumor board decision, and the final adjuvant systemic therapy decision. Results. A molecular test (OT) was done in 12.2% of patients with ER + HER2 negative early BC. The median age was 57.4 years and the median invasive tumor size was 1.7 cm. These patients were classified by ODX testing (Recurrence Score) into low-, intermediate-, and high risk groups, respectively in 27.2%, 63.6% and 9% of cases. Treatment recommendations changed in 18.2%, predominantly from chemotherapyendocrine therapy to endocrine treatment alone. Of 8 patients originally recommended chemotherapy, 25% were recommended endocrine treatment alone after receiving the Recurrence Score result. Conclusions. Though reimbursed by health insurances since January 2015, molecular tests are used moderately in our institution as per the decision of the multidisciplinary tumor board. It's mainly used to obtain a complementary confirmation supporting the decision of no chemotherapy. The OncotypeDx Recurrence Score results were in the intermediate group in 66% of the 9 tested cases but contributed to avoid chemotherapy in 2 patients during the last 12 months.

The pseudo-high-risk prevention strategy

Key Messages: A fundamental failure of high-risk prevention strategies is their inability to prevent disease in the large part of the population at a relatively small average risk and from which most cases of diseases originate. The development of individual predictive medicine and the widening of high-risk categories for numerous (chronic) conditions lead to the application of pseudo-high-risk prevention strategies. Widening the criteria justifying individual preventive interventions and the related pseudo-high-risk strategies lead to treating, individually, ever healthier and larger strata of the population. The pseudo-high-risk prevention strategies raise similar problems compared with high-risk strategies, however on a larger scale and without any of the benefit of population-based strategies. Some 30 years ago, the strengths and weaknesses of population-based and high-risk prevention strategies were brilliantly delineated by Geoffrey Rose in several seminal publications (Table 1).1,2 His work had major implications not only for epidemiology and public health but also for clinical medicine. In particular, Rose demonstrated the fundamental failure of high-risk prevention strategies, that is, by missing a large number of preventable cases.