Vanessa B Sheppard1, Suzanne C O'Neill2, Asma Dilawari3, Sara Horton4, Fikru A Hirpa2, Claudine Isaacs5. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Electronic address: vls3@georgetown.edu. 2. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. 3. Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Oncology, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC. 5. Breast Cancer Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and Departments of Oncology and Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In women with early stage, hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay quantifies recurrence risk and predicts chemotherapy responsiveness. Recent data suggest that not all women with early-stage, HR(+) disease receive this testing. We examined sociodemographic, clinical, and attitudinal factors associated with RS testing receipt and the RS testing effect on chemotherapy use in black and white patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer were recruited and interviewed to collect sociocultural and health care process data; clinical data were collected from charts. Of the sample (n = 359), 270 had HR(+) disease. Primary analysis focused on those with HR(+) node-negative disease (n = 143); secondary analyses included node-positive women. Logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with receipt of RS testing and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among women eligible for the 21-gene assay, 62 patients [43%] received RS testing. In multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio, 1.04 per 1 year increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.08) was associated with RS testing after adjustment for covariates. Chemotherapy use was 23%. In multivariable analysis, positive attitudes about chemotherapy and greater risk of recurrence were associated with chemotherapy use (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Patterns of genomic testing might vary according to age. Efforts to understand factors associated with low testing rates will be important.
BACKGROUND: In women with early stage, hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay quantifies recurrence risk and predicts chemotherapy responsiveness. Recent data suggest that not all women with early-stage, HR(+) disease receive this testing. We examined sociodemographic, clinical, and attitudinal factors associated with RS testing receipt and the RS testing effect on chemotherapy use in black and white patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer were recruited and interviewed to collect sociocultural and health care process data; clinical data were collected from charts. Of the sample (n = 359), 270 had HR(+) disease. Primary analysis focused on those with HR(+) node-negative disease (n = 143); secondary analyses included node-positive women. Logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with receipt of RS testing and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among women eligible for the 21-gene assay, 62 patients [43%] received RS testing. In multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio, 1.04 per 1 year increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.08) was associated with RS testing after adjustment for covariates. Chemotherapy use was 23%. In multivariable analysis, positive attitudes about chemotherapy and greater risk of recurrence were associated with chemotherapy use (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Patterns of genomic testing might vary according to age. Efforts to understand factors associated with low testing rates will be important.
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: Vanessa B Sheppard; Claudine Isaacs; George Luta; Shawna C Willey; Marc Boisvert; Felicity W K Harper; Karen Smith; Sara Horton; Minetta C Liu; Yvonne Jennings; Fikru Hirpa; Felicia Snead; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Marie Høyer Lundh; Claudia Lampic; Karin Nordin; Johan Ahlgren; Leif Bergkvist; Mats Lambe; Anders Berglund; Birgitta Johansson Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-04-14 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: J A Davidson; I Cromwell; S L Ellard; C Lohrisch; K A Gelmon; T Shenkier; D Villa; H Lim; S Sun; S Taylor; M Taylor; B Czerkawski; M Hayes; D N Ionescu; C Yoshizawa; C Chao; S Peacock; S K Chia Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Sean Tunis; Laurence Baker; John Crowley; Patricia Deverka; David Veenstra; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Samuel M Silver; Melissa E Hughes; Douglas W Blayney; Stephen B Edge; James G Herman; Clifford A Hudis; P Kelly Marcom; Jane E Pettinga; David Share; Richard Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; Jonathan L Vandergrift; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Melissa A Troester; Xuezheng Sun; Emma H Allott; Joseph Geradts; Stephanie M Cohen; Chiu-Kit Tse; Erin L Kirk; Leigh B Thorne; Michelle Mathews; Yan Li; Zhiyuan Hu; Whitney R Robinson; Katherine A Hoadley; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; H Shelton Earp; Andrew F Olshan; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Elizabeth Golembiewski; Katie S Allen; Amber M Blackmon; Rachel J Hinrichs; Joshua R Vest Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2019-10-07