BACKGROUND/AIMS: Our study examined whether patient characteristics, beliefs and decision-making styles were associated with uptake of genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk. METHODS: Participants were 132 early-stage breast cancer patients eligible for the Oncotype DX genomic test. We interviewed patients in 2009-2010 and obtained information from medical charts. RESULTS: Half of the women eligible for genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk received it. The most common reason for not getting the test was that women's physicians did not offer it (80%). Test recipients were more likely to be unsure about receiving chemotherapy treatment compared to women who did not receive the test (p < 0.05). Women who received the test had less advanced disease pathologies, recalled a lower objective recurrence risk, perceived lower recurrence risk, and were slightly younger (all p < 0.05). Most women who described their decision-making style as active received the test (75%), whereas few women who described their style as passive received the test (12%) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In the university clinic we studied, genomic testing appeared to be more common among patients who may benefit most from the information provided by results, but confirmation in larger studies is needed.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Our study examined whether patient characteristics, beliefs and decision-making styles were associated with uptake of genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk. METHODS:Participants were 132 early-stage breast cancerpatients eligible for the Oncotype DX genomic test. We interviewed patients in 2009-2010 and obtained information from medical charts. RESULTS: Half of the women eligible for genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk received it. The most common reason for not getting the test was that women's physicians did not offer it (80%). Test recipients were more likely to be unsure about receiving chemotherapy treatment compared to women who did not receive the test (p < 0.05). Women who received the test had less advanced disease pathologies, recalled a lower objective recurrence risk, perceived lower recurrence risk, and were slightly younger (all p < 0.05). Most women who described their decision-making style as active received the test (75%), whereas few women who described their style as passive received the test (12%) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In the university clinic we studied, genomic testing appeared to be more common among patients who may benefit most from the information provided by results, but confirmation in larger studies is needed.
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Gong Tang; Steven Shak; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Wanseop Kim; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Drew Watson; John Bryant; Joseph P Costantino; Charles E Geyer; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Elizabeth A Grunfeld; E Jane Maher; Susannah Browne; Pippa Ward; Teresa Young; Bella Vivat; Gay Walker; Cathy Wilson; Henry W Potts; Alex M Westcombe; Michael A Richards; Amanda J Ramirez Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 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: Ann Chen Wu; James P Kiley; Patricia J Noel; Shashi Amur; Esteban G Burchard; John P Clancy; Joshua Galanter; Maki Inada; Tiffanie K Jones; Jonathan A Kropski; James E Loyd; Lawrence M Nogee; Benjamin A Raby; Angela J Rogers; David A Schwartz; Don D Sin; Avrum Spira; Scott T Weiss; Lisa R Young; Blanca E Himes Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-12-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Calvin Chao; Huei-Ting Tsai; Chunfu Liu; Bola F Ekezue; Nandini Selvam; Larry G Kessler; Marc D Schwartz; Tania Lobo; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jason Rotter; Lauren Wilson; Melissa A Greiner; Craig E Pollack; Michaela Dinan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Tara Schmidlen; Amy C Sturm; Shelly Hovick; Laura Scheinfeldt; J Scott Roberts; Lindsey Morr; Joseph McElroy; Amanda E Toland; Michael Christman; Julianne M O'Daniel; Erynn S Gordon; Barbara A Bernhardt; Kelly E Ormond; Kevin Sweet Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Suzanne C O'Neill; Asma Dilawari; Sara Horton; Fikru A Hirpa; Claudine Isaacs Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Megan C Roberts; Morris Weinberger; Stacie B Dusetzina; Michaela A Dinan; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Lisa A Carey; Melissa A Troester; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andreana N Holowatyj; Michele L Cote; Julie J Ruterbusch; Kristina Ghanem; Ann G Schwartz; Fawn D Vigneau; David H Gorski; Kristen S Purrington Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julie A Lynch; Brygida Berse; Valentina Petkov; Kelly Filipski; Yingjun Zhou; Muin J Khoury; Michael Hassett; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 8.822