Skip to main content Accessibility help

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in Coverage with Evidence Development: The case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics

  • Valesca P. Retèl (a1), Jolien M. Bueno-de-Mesquita (a1), Marjan J. M. Hummel (a2), Marc J. van de Vijver (a3), Kirsten F. L. Douma (a4), Kim Karsenberg (a5), Frits S. A. M. van Dam (a4), Cees van Krimpen (a6), Frank E. Bellot (a7), Rudi M. H. Roumen (a8), Sabine C. Linn (a4) and Wim H. van Harten (a4)...


Objectives: Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) is a means to guide early implementation of new developments in society, and can be used as an evaluation tool for Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). We used CTA for the introduction of a new diagnostic test in the Netherlands, the 70-gene prognosis signature (MammaPrint®) for node-negative breast cancer patients.

Methods: Studied aspects were (organizational) efficiency, patient-centeredness and diffusion scenarios. Pre-post structured surveys were conducted in fifteen community hospitals concerning changes in logistics and teamwork as a consequence of the introduction of the 70-gene signature. Patient-centeredness was measured by questionnaires and interviews regarding knowledge and psychological impact of the test. Diffusion scenarios, which are commonly applied in industry to anticipate on future development and diffusion of their products, have been applied in this study.

Results: Median implementation-time of the 70-gene signature was 1.2 months. Most changes were seen in pathology processes and adjuvant treatment decisions. Physicians valued the addition of the 70-gene signature information as beneficial for patient management. Patient-centeredness (n = 77, response 78 percent): patients receiving a concordant high-risk and discordant clinical low/high risk-signature showed significantly more negative emotions with respect to receiving both test-results compared with concordant low-risk and discordant clinical high/low risk-signature patients. The first scenario was written in 2004 before the introduction of the 70-gene signature and identified hypothetical developments that could influence diffusion; especially the “what-if” deviation describing a discussion on validity among physicians proved to be realistic.

Conclusions: Differences in speed of implementation and influenced treatment decisions were seen. Impact on patients seems especially related to discordance and its successive communication. In the future, scenario drafting will lead to input for model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Finally, CTA can be useful as a tool to guide CED by adding monitoring and anticipation on possible developments during early implementation, to the assessment of promising new technologies.



Hide All
1. Bleiker, EM, Hendriks, JH, Otten, JD, et al. Personality factors and breast cancer risk: A 13-year follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:213218.
2. Bogaerts, J, Cardoso, F, Buyse, M, et al. Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: Challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2006;3:540551.
3. Bueno-de-Mesquita, JM, Linn, SC, Keijzer, R, et al. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008.
4. Bueno-de-Mesquita, JM, van Harten, W, Retel, V, et al. Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: A prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:10791087.
5. Buyse, M, Loi, S, van't Veer, L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:11831192.
6. Douma, KF, Karsenberg, K, Hummel, MJ, et al. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:162168.
7. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:16871717.
8. Goldhirsch, A, Glick, JH, Gelber, RD, et al. Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. Seventh International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:38173827.
9. Hutton, J, Trueman, P, Henshall, C. Coverage with evidence development: An examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:425432.
10. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
11. Ioannidis, JP. Is molecular profiling ready for use in clinical decision making? Oncologist. 2007;12:301311.
12. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO VvIK. Conceptrichtlijn Mammacarcinoom 2008. 2008:123–145.
13. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO, Vereniging voor Integrale Kankercentra: Adjuvante Systemische Therapie voor het Operabel Mammacarcinoom. Richtlijn Behandeling van het Mammacarcinoom 2005. 2005:46–70.
14. Lerman, C, Seay, J, Balshem, A, et al. Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients. Am J Med Genet. 1995;57:385392.
15. Lynch, HT, Lemon, SJ, Durham, C, et al. A descriptive study of BRCA1 testing and reactions to disclosure of test results. Cancer. 1997;79:22192228.
16. Mook, S, Van't Veer, LJ, Rutgers, EJ, et al. Individualization of therapy using Mammaprint: From development to the MINDACT Trial. Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 2007;4:147155.
17. Mowatt, G, Bower, DJ, Brebner, JA, et al. When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: A comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1:i-149.
18. Olivotto, IA, Bajdik, CD, Ravdin, PM, et al. Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:27162725.
19. Ravdin, PM, Siminoff, LA, Davis, GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:980991.
20. Retel, VP, Hummel, MJ, van Harten, WH. Early phase technology assessment of nanotechnology in oncology. Tumori. 2008;94:284290.
21. Rogers, EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
22. Schot, J, Rip, A. The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1996;54:251268.
23. Schot, JW. Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of clean technologies. Sci Technol Human Values. 1992;17:3656.
24. Tunis, SR, Chalkidou, K. Coverage with evidence development: A very good beginning, but much to be done. Commentary to Hutton et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:432435.
25. Tversky, A, Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453458.
26. van't Veer, LJ, Dai, H, van de Vijver, MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:530536.
27. van de Vijver, MJ, 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;347:19992009.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Retel supplementary list
Retel supplementary list

 Word (51 KB)
51 KB
Supplementary materials

Retel supplementary table
Retel supplementary table

 Word (100 KB)
100 KB

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in Coverage with Evidence Development: The case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics

  • Valesca P. Retèl (a1), Jolien M. Bueno-de-Mesquita (a1), Marjan J. M. Hummel (a2), Marc J. van de Vijver (a3), Kirsten F. L. Douma (a4), Kim Karsenberg (a5), Frits S. A. M. van Dam (a4), Cees van Krimpen (a6), Frank E. Bellot (a7), Rudi M. H. Roumen (a8), Sabine C. Linn (a4) and Wim H. van Harten (a4)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed