PURPOSE: The Oncotype DX assay predicts likelihood of distant recurrence and improves patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in estrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) early stage breast cancer. This study has two primary endpoints: to evaluate the impact of Oncotype DX recurrence scores (RS) on chemotherapy recommendations and to compare the estimated recurrence risk predicted by breast oncology specialists to RS. METHODS: One hundred fifty-four patients with ER-positive early stage breast cancer and available RS results were selected. Clinicopathologic data were provided to four surgeons, four medical oncologists, and four pathologists. Participants were asked to estimate recurrence risk category and offer their chemotherapy recommendations initially without and later with knowledge of RS results. The three most important clinicopathologic features guiding their recommendations were requested. RESULTS: Ninety-five (61.7%), 45 (29.2%), and 14 (9.1%) tumors were low, intermediate, and high risk by RS, respectively. RS significantly correlated with tumor grade, mitotic activity, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor, and HER2/neu status. Estimated recurrence risk by participants agreed with RS in 54.2% ± 2.3% of cases. Without and with knowledge of RS, 82.3% ± 1.3% and 69.0% ± 6.9% of patients may be overtreated, respectively (p = 0.0322). Inclusion of RS data resulted in a 24.9% change in treatment recommendations. There was no significant difference in recommendations between groups of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Breast oncology specialists tended to overestimate the risk of tumor recurrence compared with RS. RS provides useful information that improves patient selection for chemotherapy and changes treatment recommendations in approximately 25% of cases.
PURPOSE: The Oncotype DX assay predicts likelihood of distant recurrence and improves patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in estrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) early stage breast cancer. This study has two primary endpoints: to evaluate the impact of Oncotype DX recurrence scores (RS) on chemotherapy recommendations and to compare the estimated recurrence risk predicted by breast oncology specialists to RS. METHODS: One hundred fifty-four patients with ER-positive early stage breast cancer and available RS results were selected. Clinicopathologic data were provided to four surgeons, four medical oncologists, and four pathologists. Participants were asked to estimate recurrence risk category and offer their chemotherapy recommendations initially without and later with knowledge of RS results. The three most important clinicopathologic features guiding their recommendations were requested. RESULTS: Ninety-five (61.7%), 45 (29.2%), and 14 (9.1%) tumors were low, intermediate, and high risk by RS, respectively. RS significantly correlated with tumor grade, mitotic activity, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor, and HER2/neu status. Estimated recurrence risk by participants agreed with RS in 54.2% ± 2.3% of cases. Without and with knowledge of RS, 82.3% ± 1.3% and 69.0% ± 6.9% of patients may be overtreated, respectively (p = 0.0322). Inclusion of RS data resulted in a 24.9% change in treatment recommendations. There was no significant difference in recommendations between groups of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Breast oncology specialists tended to overestimate the risk of tumor recurrence compared with RS. RS provides useful information that improves patient selection for chemotherapy and changes treatment recommendations in approximately 25% of cases.
Authors: Juhi Asad; Allyson F Jacobson; Alison Estabrook; Sharon Rosenbaum Smith; Susan K Boolbol; Sheldon M Feldman; Michael P Osborne; Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei; Wendy Twardzik; Paul I Tartter Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Leonard R Henry; Alexander Stojadinovic; Sandra M Swain; Sheila Prindiville; Rose Cordes; Peter W Soballe Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 3.454
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: Laurel A Habel; Steven Shak; Marlena K Jacobs; Angela Capra; Claire Alexander; Mylan Pho; Joffre Baker; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; James Hackett; Noelle T Blick; Deborah Greenberg; Louis Fehrenbacher; Bryan Langholz; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2006-05-31 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Harry D Bear; Wen Wan; André Robidoux; Peter Rubin; Steven Limentani; Richard L White; James Granfortuna; Judith O Hopkins; Dwight Oldham; Angel Rodriguez; Amy P Sing Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Bradley M Turner; Kristin A Skinner; Ping Tang; Mary C Jackson; Nyrie Soukiazian; Michelle Shayne; Alissa Huston; Marilyn Ling; David G Hicks Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Gulisa Turashvili; Joanne F Chou; Edi Brogi; Monica Morrow; Maura Dickler; Larry Norton; Clifford Hudis; Hannah Y Wen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Hannah Y Wen; Melissa Krystel-Whittemore; Sujata Patil; Fresia Pareja; Zenica L Bowser; Maura N Dickler; Larry Norton; Monica Morrow; Clifford A Hudis; Edi Brogi Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860