Table 3.

Summary of findings table for MammaPrint

Quality assessment							Summary of findings
							Events (%)				Anticipated absolute effects
Participants (studies)	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Quality of evidence	Risk	CHT	Non- CHT	Relative effect (95% CI)	Risk in controls (non-CHT)	Risk difference (95% CI)
Disease-free survival—10 years
0 (0)						No evidence	Low:	NR	NR
							High:	NR	NR
Disease-free survival—5 years
0 (0)						No evidence	Low:	NR	NR
							High:	NR	NR
Distant recurrence—10 years
0 (0)						No evidence	Low:	NR	NR
							High:	NR	NR
Distant recurrence—5 years
0 (0)						No evidence	Low:	NR	NR
							High:	NR	NR
Overall survival—10 years
0 (0)						No evidence	Low:	NR	NR
							High:	NR	NR
Overall survival—5 years
0 (0)						No evidence	Low:	NR	NR
							High:	NR	NR
Change in treatment decisions
563 (2 studies)	Undetected	No serious inconsistency	Seriousa,b	No serious imprecision	Undetected	Low	Not estimable			Not estimable	Not estimable	Not estimable
Economic evaluation
Six studies	Undetected	Serious inconsistencyc	No serious indirectness	Serious imprecisiond	Undetected	Low	Not estimable			ICER/QALY gainedc: $716 to £53,058	Costs: €7,430 decrease to €1,130 increase	QALYs gainedc: −0.21 to 1.20

CHT, chemotherapy; CI, confidence interval; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NR, not reported; QALY, quality-adjusted life year.

^aIndirectness in the overall study design which did not have a non-gene-expression profiling (GEP) test control group and did not make treatment decisions according to GEP test result.

^bIndirectness in the participant populations within and between studies as well as in criteria used to determine initial treatment compared to GEP-test based treatment decisions.

^cInconsistency in the comparator used to estimate the ICER for MammaPrint.

^dImprecision in estimates of treatment effects across risk groups determined by MammaPrint add to variability to the economic impact.