MolDX: Breast Cancer Assay: Prosigna

LCD Information Document Information Source LCD ID N/A LCD ID L36380 Original ICD-9 LCD ID Not Applicable LCD Title MolDX: Breast Cancer Assay: Prosigna® Proposed LCD in Comment Period N/A Source Proposed LCD DL36380 Opens in a new window Original Effective Date For services performed on or after 05/03/2016 Revision Effective Date For services performed on or after 01/22/2026 Revision Ending Date N/A Retirement Date N/A Notice Period Start Date 03/17/2016 Notice Period End Date 05/02/2016 CPT codes, descriptions, and other data only are copyright 2025 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Fee schedules, relative value units, conversion factors and/or related components are not assigned by the AMA, are not part of CPT, and the AMA is not recommending their use. The AMA does not directly or indirectly practice medicine or dispense medical services. The AMA assumes no liability for data contained or not contained herein. CPT is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association. Current Dental Terminology © 2025 American Dental Association. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026, the American Hospital Association, Chicago, Illinois. Reproduced with permission. No portion of the AHA copyrighted materials contained within this publication may be copied without the express written consent of the AHA. AHA copyrighted materials including the UB‐04 codes and descriptions may not be removed, copied, or utilized within any software, product, service, solution, or derivative work without the written consent of the AHA. If an entity wishes to utilize any AHA materials, please contact the AHA at ub04@aha.org or 312‐422‐3366. Making copies or utilizing the content of the UB‐04 Manual, including the codes and/or descriptions, for internal purposes, resale and/or to be used in any product or publication; creating any modified or derivative work of the UB‐04 Manual and/or codes and descriptions; and/or making any commercial use of UB‐04 Manual or any portion thereof, including the codes and/or descriptions, is only authorized with an express license from the American Hospital Association. The American Hospital Association (the "AHA") has not reviewed, and is not responsible for, the completeness or accuracy of any information contained in this material, nor was the AHA or any of its affiliates, involved in the preparation of this material, or the analysis of information provided in the material. The views and/or positions presented in the material do not necessarily represent the views of the AHA. CMS and its products and services are not endorsed by the AHA or any of its affiliates. Issue Issue Description Issue - Explanation of Change Between Proposed LCD and Final LCD CMS National Coverage Policy Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (SSA), §1862(a)(1)(A), states that no Medicare payment shall be made for items or services that “are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.”42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §410.32 Diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic laboratory tests, and other diagnostic tests: Conditions. CMS Internet-Only Manual, Pub. 100-02, Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 15, §80 Requirements for Diagnostic X-Ray, Diagnostic Laboratory, and Other Diagnostic Tests and §80.1.1 Certification Changes Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity This policy provides limited coverage of the Prosigna® Breast Cancer Gene Signature Assay Opens in a new window to patients that meet the following criteria consistent with the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications for use: Post-menopausal female either ER+, lymph node-negative, stage I or II breast cancer; or ER+, lymph node-positive (1-3 positive nodes), stage II breast cancer. Claims for Prosigna® testing will be denied when testing does not meet all of the above criteria. BackgroundWomen with early breast cancer and up to 3 locally positive lymph nodes whose tumor is estrogen-receptor positive will usually receive anti-hormonal therapy such as tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. U.S. (NCCN) and international (St. Gallen) guidelines predicate the decision for adjuvant chemotherapy on the size and grade of the breast cancer and other factors including genomic assays that provide additional information on risk of recurrence (Hernandez-Ava, et al., 2013). According to a 2014 review, “Prognostic factors provide an indication of whether a patient needs subsequent therapy.” (Paoletti & Hayes, 2014). Similarly, another 2014 review article states, “Efforts should be focused on reducing chemotherapy in patients unlikely to benefit.” (Rampurwala, et al., 2014). Accordingly, Medicare has covered breast cancer gene signature prognostic/predictive tests since 2006.The PAM50 breast cancer gene signature test was developed in the late 1990s and initial studies showed a strong correlation with breast cancer recurrence and with complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Parker, et al., 2009). While test results are reported on a scale of 1-100 as a Risk of Recurrence (ROR) score, the underlying algorithm is also able to classify cases into the luminal A and B, Her2neu, and triple-negative subtype classifications. The Nanostring nCounter® nucleic acid analysis system replicates the PAM50 algorithm, as an FDA cleared kit, the Prosigna® Breast Cancer Gene Signature Assay (FDA, 2013). The Prosigna® package insert was most recently updated in January, 2015 (FDA, 2015) reflecting additional studies (Sestak, et al., 2014). Notably, the Prosigna® platform and the original PAM50 platform have a 0.997 correlation (Dowsett, et al., 2013).For the FDA, the Prosigna® test was validated in a large population of post-menopausal, estrogen-receptor positive women based on 1,017 cases of the TransATAC study (Dowsett, et al., 2013). The study showed a strong correlation with long-term breast cancer recurrence and added substantial additional prognostic information over a clinical treatment score based on standard clinical variables. This study was replicated in an independent population, also on the Prosigna® test, using 1,620 samples from the ABCSG8 trial (Gnant, 2014). A separate analysis of these trials validated prediction of distant recurrence in years 5-10 after initial diagnosis (Sestak, et al., 2014) and has been incorporated in the FDA labeling (FDA, 2015). The Prosigna® test is issued as separate reports, consistent with FDA review and labeling, for node-negative and node-positive (1-3 node) populations. Analytic performance, precision, reproducibility, and analysis of the clinical validations are provided in the FDA labeling (FDA, 2013; FDA, 2015).Clinical utility of this breast cancer gene signature has also been assessed. The study of Martin, et al. (2015) showed a 20% decision impact on decisions for or against adjuvant chemotherapy in an all-comers population of 200 new cases of incident breast cancer, when Prosigna® test information became available after all other clinical information had been considered. The net rates of selecting adjuvant chemotherapy for low, intermediate, and high risk cases was similar to that observed in a meta-analysis of Oncotype DX decision data (Carlson & Roth, 2013). Additional support for the use of these test results in treatment decisions comes from Parker, et al. (2009), in which there was a strong association with neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. Low-scoring cases have a very low change of complete pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, while high-scoring cases approach a 50% chance of complete pathological response. The same findings have been observed for other breast cancer gene signatures based on prognostic algorithms (Chang, et al., 2008). Summary of Evidence NA Analysis of Evidence (Rationale for Determination) NA

This policy provides limited coverage of the Prosigna® Breast Cancer Gene Signature Assay to patients that meet the following criteria consistent with the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications for use: Post-menopausal female either ER+, lymph node-negative, stage I or II breast cancer; or ER+, lymph node-positive (1-3 positive nodes), stage II breast cancer. Claims for Prosigna® testing will be denied when testing does not meet all of the above criteria. Background Women with early breast cancer and up to 3 locally positive lymph nodes whose tumor is estrogen-receptor positive will usually receive anti-hormonal therapy such as tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. U.S. (NCCN) and international (St. Gallen) guidelines predicate the decision for adjuvant chemotherapy on the size and grade of the breast cancer and other factors including genomic assays that provide additional information on risk of recurrence (Hernandez-Ava, et al., 2013). According to a 2014 review, “Prognostic factors provide an indication of whether a patient needs subsequent therapy.” (Paoletti & Hayes, 2014). Similarly, another 2014 review article states, “Efforts should be focused on reducing chemotherapy in patients unlikely to benefit.” (Rampurwala, et al., 2014). Accordingly, Medicare has covered breast cancer gene signature prognostic/predictive tests since 2006. The PAM50 breast cancer gene signature test was developed in the late 1990s and initial studies showed a strong correlation with breast cancer recurrence and with complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Parker, et al., 2009). While test results are reported on a scale of 1-100 as a Risk of Recurrence (ROR) score, the underlying algorithm is also able to classify cases into the luminal A and B, Her2neu, and triple-negative subtype classifications. The Nanostring nCounter® nucleic acid analysis system replicates the PAM50 algorithm, as an FDA cleared kit, the Prosigna® Breast Cancer Gene Signature Assay (FDA, 2013). The Prosigna® package insert was most recently updated in January, 2015 (FDA, 2015) reflecting additional studies (Sestak, et al., 2014). Notably, the Prosigna® platform and the original PAM50 platform have a 0.997 correlation (Dowsett, et al., 2013). For the FDA, the Prosigna® test was validated in a large population of post-menopausal, estrogen-receptor positive women based on 1,017 cases of the TransATAC study (Dowsett, et al., 2013). The study showed a strong correlation with long-term breast cancer recurrence and added substantial additional prognostic information over a clinical treatment score based on standard clinical variables. This study was replicated in an independent population, also on the Prosigna® test, using 1,620 samples from the ABCSG8 trial (Gnant, 2014). A separate analysis of these trials validated prediction of distant recurrence in years 5-10 after initial diagnosis (Sestak, et al., 2014) and has been incorporated in the FDA labeling (FDA, 2015). The Prosigna® test is issued as separate reports, consistent with FDA review and labeling, for node-negative and node-positive (1-3 node) populations. Analytic performance, precision, reproducibility, and analysis of the clinical validations are provided in the FDA labeling (FDA, 2013; FDA, 2015). Clinical utility of this breast cancer gene signature has also been assessed. The study of Martin, et al. (2015) showed a 20% decision impact on decisions for or against adjuvant chemotherapy in an all-comers population of 200 new cases of incident breast cancer, when Prosigna® test information became available after all other clinical information had been considered. The net rates of selecting adjuvant chemotherapy for low, intermediate, and high risk cases was similar to that observed in a meta-analysis of Oncotype DX decision data (Carlson & Roth, 2013). Additional support for the use of these test results in treatment decisions comes from Parker, et al. (2009), in which there was a strong association with neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. Low-scoring cases have a very low change of complete pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, while high-scoring cases approach a 50% chance of complete pathological response. The same findings have been observed for other breast cancer gene signatures based on prognostic algorithms (Chang, et al., 2008).