pressing concern, including: workforce requirements; education, training and literacy for the medical workforce and community; infrastructure; data; and ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). HealthPACT recommended a national coordinated approach to policy development across jurisdictional boundaries to ensure appropriate adoption of genomics. Stakeholder consultation confirmed overwhelming support for greater national coordination of the application of genomic knowledge in healthcare. Five strategic priorities were developed to support appropriate integration of genomics into health care for Australians: person-centered approach; workforce; financing; services; and, data. Three principles underpin strategic priorities: i) application of genomic knowledge is ethically, legally and socially responsible and community trust is promoted; ii) access and equity are promoted for vulnerable populations; and, iii) application of genomic knowledge to health care is supported and informed by evidence and research. CONCLUSIONS: HS identified significant policy, workforce, funding and sustainability issues already facing state and territory governments that would, in time, face the federal government. The National Health Genomics Policy Framework outlines an agreed high-level national approach to policy, regulatory and investment decision-making for genomics and was approved by all Australian health Ministers in November 2017. ............................................... OP66 Tumor Profiling Tests In Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review AUTHORS: Susan Harnan (s.harnan@sheffield.ac.uk), Katy Cooper, John Stevens, Ruth Wong, Paul Tappenden, Alice Bessey, Sue Ward, Rachid Rafia, Rob Stein, Janet Brown INTRODUCTION: Tumor profiling tests can help to identify whether women with breast cancer need chemotherapy due to their risk of relapse, and some may be able to predict benefit from chemotherapy. We focused on four genetic tests: Oncotype DX (O-DX), MammaPrint (MMP), EndoPredict and Prosigna, and one immunohistochemistry test, IHC4, for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence as part of their Diagnostic Appraisal Programme. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken, including searching of nine databases in February 2017 plus other sources including a previous review published in 2013. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness of the five tumor profiling tests, with or without clinicopathological factors, to guide decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy in people with ER- positive, HER-2 negative, Stage I-II cancer with 0 to 3 positive lymph nodes (LN). The PROBAST tool and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 153 studies were included; the strength of evidence base for individual tests was varied. Results suggest all tests are prognostic for risk of relapse, though results were more varied in LN positive (+) patients than in LN negative (0) patients. Evidence was limited about whether tests can predict benefit from chemotherapy (available for MMP and O-DX only). Studies that assessed the impact of the tests on clinical decisions indicate that the net change in chemotherapy recommendations or decisions pre-/post-test ranged from an increase of one percent to a decrease of 23 percent among UK studies, and a decrease of zero percent to 64 percent across European studies. CONCLUSIONS: The studies included in the review suggest that all of the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; however results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence for prediction of chemotherapy benefit. ............................................... OP68 Methods For The Economic Evaluation Of Precision Medicine AUTHORS: Reka Pataky (rpataky@bccrc.ca), Dean Regier 24 ORAL PRESENTATIONS https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462318001101 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 198.252.53.90, on 04 Jan 2019 at 12:41:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.