Literature DB >> 25746345

The value of personalizing medicine: medical oncologists' views on gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment.

Yvonne Bombard1, Linda Rozmovits2, Maureen Trudeau2, Natasha B Leighl2, Ken Deal2, Deborah A Marshall2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend gene-expression profiling (GEP) tests to identify early-stage breast cancer patients who may benefit from chemotherapy. However, variation exists in oncologists' use of GEP. We explored medical oncologists' views of GEP tests and factors impacting its use in clinical practice.
METHODS: We used a qualitative design, comprising telephone interviews with medical oncologists (n = 14; 10 academic, 4 in the community) recruited through oncology clinics, professional advertisements, and referrals. Interviews were analyzed for anticipated and emergent themes using the constant comparative method including searches for disconfirming evidence.
RESULTS: Some oncologists considered GEP to be a tool that enhanced confidence in their established approach to risk assessments, whereas others described it as "critical" to resolving their uncertainty about whether to recommend chemotherapy. Some community oncologists also valued the test in interpreting what they considered variable practice and accuracy across pathology reports and testing facilities. However, concerns were also raised about GEP's cost, overuse, inappropriate use, and over-reliance on the results within the medical community. In addition, although many oncologists said it was simple to explain the test to patients, paradoxically, they remained uncertain about patients' understanding of the test results and their treatment implications.
CONCLUSION: Oncologists valued the test as a treatment-decision support tool despite their concerns about its cost, over-reliance, overuse, and inappropriate use by other oncologists, as well as patients' limited understanding of GEP. The results identify a need for decision aids to support patients' understanding and clinical practice guidelines to facilitate standardized use of the test. ©AlphaMed Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Gene expression profiling; Oncologists; Oncotype DX; Perceptions; Treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25746345      PMCID: PMC4391763          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  33 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Overuse of health care services: when less is more … more or less.

Authors:  Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Peter B Bach
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  When genomic and standard test results diverge: implications for breast cancer patients' preference for chemotherapy.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Alrick S Edwards; Suzanne C O'Neill; Janice P Tzeng; Lisa A Carey; Barbara K Rimer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions.

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

6.  Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Mitch Dowsett; Silvia Pineda; Christopher Wale; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Lila Zabaglo; Elizabeth Mallon; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Anthony Howell; Aman U Buzdar; John F Forbes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  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

8.  A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients.

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

9.  Technology assessment and resource allocation for predictive genetic testing: a study of the perspectives of Canadian genetic health care providers.

Authors:  Alethea Adair; Robyn Hyde-Lay; Edna Einsiedel; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy.

Authors:  Mitch Dowsett; Ivana Sestak; Elena Lopez-Knowles; Kalvinder Sidhu; Anita K Dunbier; J Wayne Cowens; Sean Ferree; James Storhoff; Carl Schaper; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  14 in total

1.  Impact of genomic testing and patient-reported outcomes on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Chalanda N Evans; Noel T Brewer; Susan T Vadaparampil; Marc Boisvert; Yvonne Ottaviano; M Catherine Lee; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Uptake of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer practice: views of academic and community-based oncologists.

Authors:  M A O'Brien; S Dhesy-Thind; C Charles; M Hammond Mobilio; N B Leighl; E Grunfeld
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Estimating the OncotypeDX score: validation of an inexpensive estimation tool.

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

4.  Adoption of Gene Expression Profiling for Breast Cancer in US Oncology Practice for Women Younger Than 65 Years.

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

5.  Lessons learned from a cancer knowledge translation grants program: results of an evaluation.

Authors:  M A O'Brien; T Makuwaza; I D Graham; L Barbera; C C Earle; M C Brouwers; E Grunfeld
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Patient-Centered Communication for Discussing Oncotype DX Testing.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Amy Bryson; Morris Weinberger; Stacie B Dusetzina; Michaela A Dinan; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Stephanie B Wheeler
Journal:  Cancer Invest       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 2.176

Review 7.  Clinical use of the Oncotype DX genomic test to guide treatment decisions for patients with invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Terri P McVeigh; Michael J Kerin
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2017-05-29

8.  Providing guidance for genomics-based cancer treatment decisions: insights from stakeholder engagement for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy.

Authors:  James Abe; Jennifer M Lobo; Daniel M Trifiletti; Timothy N Showalter
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Ken Deal; Yvonne Bombard; Natasha Leighl; Karen V MacDonald; Maureen Trudeau
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  MammaPrint versus EndoPredict: Poor correlation in disease recurrence risk classification of hormone receptor positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Andreas Bösl; Andreas Spitzmüller; Zerina Jasarevic; Stefanie Rauch; Silke Jäger; Felix Offner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.