PURPOSE: Oncotype Dx 21-gene assay recurrence score (RS) predicts recurrence of early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). We investigated whether patient, tumor, or practice characteristics drive its use and explored Oncotype DX RS and chemotherapy use in subgroups. METHODS: Patients with ESBC with documented estrogen receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors registered within McKesson Specialty Health's iKnowMed electronic health record were included. Patient and practice characteristics by region and size were analyzed. The association between Oncotype DX RS value and use of chemotherapy were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 6,229 patients. Of these, 1,822 (29%) had an Oncotype DX RS result. Test use was 36%, 38%, 34%, 25%, and 6%, respectively, in patients age ≤ 45, 46-55, 56-65, 66-75, and ≥ 76 years; 33%, 25%, and 9% in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, and ≥ 2; 7%, 9%, 25%, 38%, 27%, and 10% in T1mic, T1a, T1b, T1c, T2, and T3 tumors; and 26%, 32%, and 33% for grades 1, 2, and 3 tumors. Of the 1,822 patients with available Oncotype DX RS, adjuvant chemotherapy use was 6%, 42%, and 84% in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who were younger, had better ECOG performance status, or had higher grade tumors were more likely to undergo RS testing. It appears that the RS test may have influenced the decision about whether to administer adjuvant chemotherapy: a low RS score was associated with lower chemotherapy use and a high RS score was associated with higher chemotherapy use.
PURPOSE: Oncotype Dx 21-gene assay recurrence score (RS) predicts recurrence of early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). We investigated whether patient, tumor, or practice characteristics drive its use and explored Oncotype DX RS and chemotherapy use in subgroups. METHODS:Patients with ESBC with documented estrogen receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors registered within McKesson Specialty Health's iKnowMed electronic health record were included. Patient and practice characteristics by region and size were analyzed. The association between Oncotype DX RS value and use of chemotherapy were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 6,229 patients. Of these, 1,822 (29%) had an Oncotype DX RS result. Test use was 36%, 38%, 34%, 25%, and 6%, respectively, in patients age ≤ 45, 46-55, 56-65, 66-75, and ≥ 76 years; 33%, 25%, and 9% in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, and ≥ 2; 7%, 9%, 25%, 38%, 27%, and 10% in T1mic, T1a, T1b, T1c, T2, and T3 tumors; and 26%, 32%, and 33% for grades 1, 2, and 3 tumors. Of the 1,822 patients with available Oncotype DX RS, adjuvant chemotherapy use was 6%, 42%, and 84% in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. CONCLUSION:Patients who were younger, had better ECOG performance status, or had higher grade tumors were more likely to undergo RS testing. It appears that the RS test may have influenced the decision about whether to administer adjuvant chemotherapy: a low RS score was associated with lower chemotherapy use and a high RS score was associated with higher chemotherapy use.
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: Gong Tang; Steven Shak; Soonmyung Paik; Stewart J Anderson; Joseph P Costantino; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Robert W Carlson; Elizabeth Brown; Harold J Burstein; William J Gradishar; Clifford A Hudis; Charles Loprinzi; Eleftherios Paul Mamounas; Edith A Perez; Kathleen Pritchard; Peter Ravdin; Abram Recht; George Somlo; Richard L Theriault; Eric P Winer; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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: 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: Nita Amornsiripanitch; Vicky T Nguyen; Habib Rahbar; Daniel S Hippe; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.813
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: 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: Tracy A Lieu; G Thomas Ray; Stephanie R Prausnitz; Laurel A Habel; Stacey Alexeeff; Yan Li; Scott D Ramsey; Charles E Phelps; Neetu Chawla; Suzanne C O'Neill; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: G Thomas Ray; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Laurel A Habel; Scott Ramsey; Lawrence H Kushi; Yan Li; Tracy A Lieu Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 2.229