PURPOSE: Given the likely proliferation of targeted testing and treatment strategies for cancer, a better understanding of the utilization patterns of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing and trastuzumab and newer gene expression profiling (GEP) for risk stratification and chemotherapy decision making are important. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: We performed a medical record review of women age 35 to 65 years diagnosed between 2006 and 2007 with invasive localized breast cancer, identified using claims from a large national health plan (N = 775). RESULTS: Almost all women received HER2 testing (96.9%), and 24.9% of women with an accepted indication received GEP. Unexplained socioeconomic differences in GEP use were apparent after adjusting for age and clinical characteristics; specifically, GEP use increased with income. For example, those in the lowest income category (< $40,000) were less likely than those with an income of $125,000 or more to receive GEP (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.73). A majority of women (57.7%) with HER2-positive disease received trastuzumab; among these women, differences in age and clinical characteristics were not apparent, although surprisingly, those in the lowest income category were more likely than those in the high-income category to receive trastuzumab (P = .02). Among women who did not have a positive HER2 test, 3.9% still received trastuzumab. Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy increased as GEP score indicated greater risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Identifying and eliminating unnecessary variation in the use of these expensive tests and treatments should be part of quality improvement and efficiency programs.
PURPOSE: Given the likely proliferation of targeted testing and treatment strategies for cancer, a better understanding of the utilization patterns of humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing and trastuzumab and newer gene expression profiling (GEP) for risk stratification and chemotherapy decision making are important. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: We performed a medical record review of women age 35 to 65 years diagnosed between 2006 and 2007 with invasive localized breast cancer, identified using claims from a large national health plan (N = 775). RESULTS: Almost all women received HER2 testing (96.9%), and 24.9% of women with an accepted indication received GEP. Unexplained socioeconomic differences in GEP use were apparent after adjusting for age and clinical characteristics; specifically, GEP use increased with income. For example, those in the lowest income category (< $40,000) were less likely than those with an income of $125,000 or more to receive GEP (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.73). A majority of women (57.7%) with HER2-positive disease received trastuzumab; among these women, differences in age and clinical characteristics were not apparent, although surprisingly, those in the lowest income category were more likely than those in the high-income category to receive trastuzumab (P = .02). Among women who did not have a positive HER2 test, 3.9% still received trastuzumab. Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy increased as GEP score indicated greater risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Identifying and eliminating unnecessary variation in the use of these expensive tests and treatments should be part of quality improvement and efficiency programs.
Authors: Nina Oestreicher; Scott D Ramsey; Hannah M Linden; Jeannine S McCune; Laura J van't Veer; Wylie Burke; David L Veenstra Journal: Genet Med Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Michael J Hassett; A James O'Malley; Juliana R Pakes; Joseph P Newhouse; Craig C Earle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-08-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Jared N Schwartz; Karen L Hagerty; D Craig Allred; Richard J Cote; Mitchell Dowsett; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Wedad M Hanna; Amy Langer; Lisa M McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D Pegram; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine Sturgeon; Sheila E Taube; Raymond Tubbs; Gail H Vance; Marc van de Vijver; Thomas M Wheeler; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Marion Procter; Brian Leyland-Jones; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Ian Smith; Luca Gianni; Jose Baselga; Richard Bell; Christian Jackisch; David Cameron; Mitch Dowsett; Carlos H Barrios; Günther Steger; Chiun-Shen Huang; Michael Andersson; Moshe Inbar; Mikhail Lichinitser; István Láng; Ulrike Nitz; Hiroji Iwata; Christoph Thomssen; Caroline Lohrisch; Thomas M Suter; Josef Rüschoff; Tamás Suto; Victoria Greatorex; Carol Ward; Carolyn Straehle; Eleanor McFadden; M Stella Dolci; Richard D Gelber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hadi Yaziji; Lynn C Goldstein; Todd S Barry; Robert Werling; Harry Hwang; Georgiana K Ellis; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Allen M Gown Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Benjamin Kim; Lynette Sholl; Angel Cronin; Aparna R Parikh; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; David A Haggstrom; Nancy L Keating Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Julie N Harris; Petra Liljestrand; Gwen L Alexander; Katrina A B Goddard; Tia Kauffman; Tatjana Kolevska; Catherine McCarty; Suzanne O'Neill; Pamala Pawloski; Alanna Rahm; Andrew Williams; Carol P Somkin Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Ilia L Ferrusi; Craig C Earle; Maureen Trudeau; Natasha B Leighl; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Hoa Khong; Jeffrey S Hoch; Deborah A Marshall Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Ruth P Norris; Rosie Dew; Linda Sharp; Alastair Greystoke; Stephen Rice; Kristina Johnell; Adam Todd Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 8.775