Literature DB >> 23974828

The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Josh J Carlson1, Joshua A Roth.   

Abstract

The impact of the Oncotype Dx (ODX) breast cancer assay on adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) treatment decisions has been evaluated in many previous studies. However, it can be difficult to interpret the collective findings, which were conducted in diverse settings with limited sample sizes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the results and provide insights about ODX utility. Studies, identified from PubMed, Embase, ASCO, and SABCS, were included if patients had ER+, node -, early-stage breast cancer, reported use of ODX to inform actual ACT decisions. Information was summarized and pooled according to: (1) distribution of ODX recurrence scores (RS), (2) impact of ODX on ACT recommendations, (3) impact of ODX on ACT use, and (4) proportion of patients following the treatment suggested by the ODX RS. A total of 23 studies met inclusion criteria. The distribution of RS categories was 48.8 % low, 39.0 % intermediate, and 12.2 % high (21 studies, 4,156 patients). ODX changed the clinical-pathological ACT recommendation in 33.4 % of patients (8 studies, 1,437 patients). In patients receiving ODX, receipt of ACT were: 28.2 % overall, 5.8 % low, 37.4 % intermediate, and 83.4 % high. Low RS patients were significantly more likely to follow the treatment suggested by ODX versus high RS patients RR: 1.07 (1.01–1.14) [corrected].The pooled results are consistent with most individual studies to date. The increased proportion of intermediate scores relative to original estimates may have implications for the clinical utility and cost impacts of testing. In addition, low versus high RS patients were significantly more likely to follow the ODX results, suggesting a tendency toward less aggressive treatment, despite a high ODX RS. Finally, there was a lack of studies on the impact of ODX on ACT use versus standard approaches, suggesting that additional studies are warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23974828      PMCID: PMC3902996          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2666-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  42 in total

1.  Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  John Hornberger; Leon E Cosler; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.229

2.  Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications?

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

3.  Does oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer?

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

4.  Comparison of the prognostic and predictive utilities of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20.

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

5.  Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1994-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  The effects of oncotype DX recurrence scores on chemotherapy utilization in a multi-institutional breast cancer cohort.

Authors:  Foluso O Ademuyiwa; Austin Miller; Tracey O'Connor; Stephen B Edge; Mangesh A Thorat; George W Sledge; Ellis Levine; Sunil Badve
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 7.  Impact of gene expression profiling tests on breast cancer outcomes.

Authors:  Luigi Marchionni; Renee F Wilson; Spyridon S Marinopoulos; Antonio C Wolff; Giovanni Parmigiani; Eric B Bass; Steven N Goodman
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep)       Date:  2007-12

Review 8.  Genomic predictors of outcome and treatment response in breast cancer.

Authors:  Lara Dunn; Angela Demichele
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.074

9.  Factors associated with receipt of breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy in a diverse population-based sample.

Authors:  Jennifer J Griggs; Sarah T Hawley; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Reshma Jagsi; Nancy K Janz; Mahasin S Mujahid; Christopher R Friese; Barbara Salem; Paul H Abrahamse; Steven J Katz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials.

Authors:  R Peto; C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; H C Pan; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; C Taylor; Y C Wang; J Bergh; A Di Leo; K Albain; S Swain; M Piccart; K Pritchard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  81 in total

1.  Is There a Role for Oncotype Dx Testing in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma?

Authors:  Niamh Conlon; Dara S Ross; Jane Howard; Jeffrey P Catalano; Maura N Dickler; Lee K Tan
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 2.431

2.  Circulating Tumour DNA as a Potential Cost-Effective Biomarker to Reduce Adjuvant Chemotherapy Overtreatment in Stage II Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Yat Hang To; Koen Degeling; Suzanne Kosmider; Rachel Wong; Margaret Lee; Catherine Dunn; Grace Gard; Azim Jalali; Vanessa Wong; Maarten IJzerman; Peter Gibbs; Jeanne Tie
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-06-05       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Use of modified Magee equations and histologic criteria to predict the Oncotype DX recurrence score.

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

4.  Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice.

Authors:  Young Chandler; Clyde B Schechter; Jinani Jayasekera; Aimee Near; Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Charles E Phelps; G Thomas Ray; Tracy A Lieu; Scott Ramsey; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Documenting Pharmacogenomic Testing with CPT Codes.

Authors:  Erik Hefti; Javier G Blanco
Journal:  J AHIMA       Date:  2016-01

6.  21-Gene recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

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

Review 7.  Identification of estrogen-responsive genes based on the DNA binding properties of estrogen receptors using high-throughput sequencing technology.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Ikeda; Kuniko Horie-Inoue; Satoshi Inoue
Journal:  Acta Pharmacol Sin       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 8.  Genomic profiling in luminal breast cancer.

Authors:  Oleg Gluz; Daniel Hofmann; Rachel Würstlein; Cornelia Liedtke; Ulrike Nitz; Nadia Harbeck
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Breast carcinoma with an Oncotype Dx recurrence score <18: Rate of distant metastases in a large series with clinical follow-up.

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

Review 10.  Circulating Tumor Cells, DNA, and mRNA: Potential for Clinical Utility in Patients With Melanoma.

Authors:  Melody J Xu; Jay F Dorsey; Ravi Amaravadi; Giorgos Karakousis; Charles B Simone; Xiaowei Xu; Wei Xu; Erica L Carpenter; Lynn Schuchter; Gary D Kao
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-11-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.