BACKGROUND: Half of all breast cancers are early stage, lymph node negative, and hormone receptor positive. A 21-gene (Oncotype DX®; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA) recurrence score (RS) is prognostic for recurrence and predictive of chemotherapy benefit. We explored the ability of oncologists to predict the RS using standard prognostic criteria. METHODS: Standard demographic and tumor prognostic criteria were obtained from patients with an available RS. Two academic pathologists provided tumor grade, histologic type, and hormone receptor status. Six academic oncologists predicted the RS category (low, intermediate, or high) and provided a recommendation for therapy. The oncologists were then given the actual RS and provided recommendations for therapy. Analysis for agreement was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one cases, including nine additional cases with variant pathology reads, were presented. There was substantial agreement in oncologists' ability to discriminate between true low or true intermediate and true high (κ = 0.75; p < .0001). Predictions between low and intermediate were not consistent. The most common discrepancies were predictions of a low RS risk when cases were true intermediate and predictions of an intermediate RS risk when cases were true low. The actual RS resulted in a change in the treatment recommendations in 19% of cases. Of the 186 scenarios and six oncologists in aggregate, five fewer chemotherapy recommendations resulted with the actual RS. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists are able to differentiate between a low or intermediate RS and a high RS using standard prognostic criteria. However, provision of the actual RS changed the treatment recommendations in nearly 20% of cases, suggesting that the RS may reduce chemotherapy use. This effect was observed in particular in intermediate-risk cases. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to determine whether decisions based on the RS change outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Half of all breast cancers are early stage, lymph node negative, and hormone receptor positive. A 21-gene (Oncotype DX®; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA) recurrence score (RS) is prognostic for recurrence and predictive of chemotherapy benefit. We explored the ability of oncologists to predict the RS using standard prognostic criteria. METHODS: Standard demographic and tumor prognostic criteria were obtained from patients with an available RS. Two academic pathologists provided tumor grade, histologic type, and hormone receptor status. Six academic oncologists predicted the RS category (low, intermediate, or high) and provided a recommendation for therapy. The oncologists were then given the actual RS and provided recommendations for therapy. Analysis for agreement was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one cases, including nine additional cases with variant pathology reads, were presented. There was substantial agreement in oncologists' ability to discriminate between true low or true intermediate and true high (κ = 0.75; p < .0001). Predictions between low and intermediate were not consistent. The most common discrepancies were predictions of a low RS risk when cases were true intermediate and predictions of an intermediate RS risk when cases were true low. The actual RS resulted in a change in the treatment recommendations in 19% of cases. Of the 186 scenarios and six oncologists in aggregate, five fewer chemotherapy recommendations resulted with the actual RS. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists are able to differentiate between a low or intermediate RS and a high RS using standard prognostic criteria. However, provision of the actual RS changed the treatment recommendations in nearly 20% of cases, suggesting that the RS may reduce chemotherapy use. This effect was observed in particular in intermediate-risk cases. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to determine whether decisions based on the RS change outcomes.
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Augustinus A M Hart; Dorien W Voskuil; George J Schreiber; Johannes L Peterse; Chris Roberts; Matthew J Marton; Mark Parrish; Douwe Atsma; Anke Witteveen; Annuska Glas; Leonie Delahaye; Tony van der Velde; Harry Bartelink; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel T Rutgers; Stephen H Friend; René Bernards Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shelly S Lo; Patricia B Mumby; John Norton; Karen Rychlik; Jeffrey Smerage; Joseph Kash; Helen K Chew; Ellen R Gaynor; Daniel F Hayes; Andrew Epstein; Kathy S Albain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Christopher Wale; John Forbes; Elizabeth A Mallon; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Anita Dunbier; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Steven Shak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S F Mitsuma; M K Mansour; J P Dekker; J Kim; M Z Rahman; A Tweed-Kent; P Schuetz Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Anne A Eaton; Catherine E Pesce; James O Murphy; Michelle M Stempel; Sujata M Patil; Edi Brogi; Clifford A Hudis; Mahmoud El-Tamer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Michele M Gage; Martin Rosman; W Charles Mylander; Erica Giblin; Hyun-Seok Kim; Leslie Cope; Christopher Umbricht; Antonio C Wolff; Lorraine Tafra Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Phuong Dinh; J Dinny Graham; Elisabeth N Elder; Masrura Kabir; Tram B Doan; James French; Farid Meybodi; Rina Hui; Nicholas R Wilcken; Paul R Harnett; Jeremy Hsu; Kirsty E Stuart; Tim Wang; Verity Ahern; Meagan Brennan; Stephen B Fox; Rachel F Dear; Elgene Lim; Michelle White; G Bruce Mann; Nirmala Pathmanathan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Moo Hyun Lee; Wonshik Han; Jeong Eon Lee; Ku Sang Kim; Heeseung Park; Jongjin Kim; Soo Youn Bae; Hyun Joo Shin; Jong Won Lee; Eun Sook Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Salomon M Stemmer; Shmuel H Klang; Noa Ben-Baruch; David B Geffen; Mariana Steiner; Lior Soussan-Gutman; Shahar Merling; Christer Svedman; Shulamith Rizel; Nicky Lieberman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Zsuzsanna Varga; Peter Sinn; Florian Fritzsche; Arthur von Hochstetter; Aurelia Noske; Peter Schraml; Christoph Tausch; Andreas Trojan; Holger Moch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 3.240