HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - Routine marker testing and recurrence... worth it?

dlaxague · 10-25-2007, 05:45 PM

Not wrong, that's a correct quote, but just not all of it. Somewhere it says in the short version that some of the markers have limitations or are only for certain circumstance (my words, not their, I'm in a rush). Here's the quote from the full article, about primary f/u using CA 15-3 and CA 27.29:

CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 to detect
recurrence after primary breast
cancer therapy

Present data do not support the use of CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 for monitoring
patients for recurrence after primary breast cancer therapy.

There is no

change from the guideline published in 2000.

Formatting lost, as usual. And the discussion, which I'm just now reading, between fixing dinner chores:

2007 recommendation for CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 to detect recurrence
after primary breast cancer therapy.
Present data do not support
the use of CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 for monitoring patients for recurrence
after primary breast cancer therapy. There is no change from the
guideline published in 2000.

Literature update and discussion.
Several well-designed studies
have shown that an increase in CA 15-3 or CA 27.29 after primary
and/or adjuvant therapy can predict recurrence an average of 5 to 6
months before other symptoms or tests. While additional studies have
been published since the last ASCO guideline that address the value of
these serum markers at detecting recurrence,11-16 there are no prospective
randomized clinical trials to demonstrate whether detection
and treatment of occult or asymptomatic metastases using tumor
markers impact on the most significant outcomes (disease-free survival,
overall survival, quality of life, toxicity, or cost-effectiveness).
Although the assay was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration,
theUSFood and Drug Administration does not require tests
to show clinical benefit if that is not part of the manufacturer’s indication.
Given the limited evidence, and until clinical benefit is established,
present data are insufficient to recommend routine use of CA
15.3 or CA 27.29 for this application. This recommendation is in line
with that of the ASCO guideline for follow-up and management of

patients with breast cancer.9

Debbie again - There's another disclaimer that you'd like, about individual judgment and the recommendations not being always the best for individuals - use my link and read the whole thing, it's fascinating, at least so far.

10-25-2007, 05:45 PM	#81
dlaxague Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 221	Not wrong, that's a correct quote, but just not all of it. Somewhere it says in the short version that some of the markers have limitations or are only for certain circumstance (my words, not their, I'm in a rush). Here's the quote from the full article, about primary f/u using CA 15-3 and CA 27.29: CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 to detect recurrence after primary breast cancer therapy Present data do not support the use of CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 for monitoring patients for recurrence after primary breast cancer therapy. *There is no* change from the guideline published in 2000. Formatting lost, as usual. And the discussion, which I'm just now reading, between fixing dinner chores: 2007 recommendation for CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 to detect recurrence after primary breast cancer therapy. Present data do not support the use of CA 15-3 and CA 27.29 for monitoring patients for recurrence after primary breast cancer therapy. There is no change from the guideline published in 2000. Literature update and discussion. Several well-designed studies have shown that an increase in CA 15-3 or CA 27.29 after primary and/or adjuvant therapy can predict recurrence an average of 5 to 6 months before other symptoms or tests. While additional studies have been published since the last ASCO guideline that address the value of these serum markers at detecting recurrence,11-16 there are no prospective randomized clinical trials to demonstrate whether detection and treatment of occult or asymptomatic metastases using tumor markers impact on the most significant outcomes (disease-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, toxicity, or cost-effectiveness). Although the assay was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, theUSFood and Drug Administration does not require tests to show clinical benefit if that is not part of the manufacturer’s indication. Given the limited evidence, and until clinical benefit is established, present data are insufficient to recommend routine use of CA 15.3 or CA 27.29 for this application. This recommendation is in line with that of the ASCO guideline for follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer.9 Debbie again - There's another disclaimer that you'd like, about individual judgment and the recommendations not being always the best for individuals - use my link and read the whole thing, it's fascinating, at least so far.