An illustration · invented records · this source is real
Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in lymph node-positive early breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation
Tappenden P, Cooper K, Hamilton J, Nalbant G, et al. (2025). Health Technology Assessment (NIHR, UK). PubMed 41074908 · DOI 10.3310/KGFD4040 · PubMed record
What kind of source: Systematic review and health-economic evaluation for the UK NHS. Where it sits in the summary: Still being studied. Back to the summary
What it says, in plain language
An independent UK review of four genomic tests in node-positive disease. It separates two things the tests are asked to do: predict risk (all four do) and predict who benefits from chemotherapy (evidence is weaker, and mostly for the 21-gene test).
Full paper in this folder: yes. Read the whole article (CC BY, reproduced in full from the publisher’s XML).
The exact words we relied on
“All four tests provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse. The evidence on prediction of relative chemotherapy benefit is weaker and mostly limited to Oncotype DX.” — PMID:41074908, Abstract, Conclusions
“There are limited data on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit; evidence for Oncotype DX may support a predictive benefit, but this is uncertain.” — PMID:41074908, Abstract, Limitations
How these quotes were checked
Follow the passage links above to the included paper or public source record.
Full text, publisher XML. The publisher’s XML was retrieved and the quotes were checked against it by exact string match. The locator in brackets is the section and paragraph in that XML.
Limits of this source
Node-positive population and UK cost assumptions; the review’s own conclusion is that the evidence on predicting chemotherapy benefit is weaker than the evidence on predicting risk. The full report (182 pages) is in this folder, including its nine appendices.
Review
Reviewed by Sarah Kiselycznyk · September 10, 2026. Review scope and verification method: How we researched this.