Literature DB >> 26483061

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

Suzanne C O'Neill1, Claudine Isaacs1, Calvin Chao1, Huei-Ting Tsai1, Chunfu Liu1, Bola F Ekezue1, Nandini Selvam1, Larry G Kessler1, Marc D Schwartz1, Tania Lobo1, Arnold L Potosky1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A number of practice guidelines incorporate the use of gene expression profiling (GEP) tests for early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast tumors. Few studies describe factors associated with GEP testing in US oncology practice. We assessed the relationship between clinical, demographic, and group-level socioeconomic variables and test use in women younger than 65 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 5 state cancer registries were linked with insurance claims data and GEP test results. We assessed rates of testing and variables associated with test use in an incident cohort of 9,444 commercially insured women younger than 65 years, newly diagnosed with stage I or II hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2006 through 2012.
RESULTS: Rates of testing for women with N0 disease increased from 20.4% in 2006 to 35.2% in 2011. Variables associated with higher rates of testing, beyond clinical factors such as nodal status (P<.001), included being diagnosed from 2008 through 2012 versus 2006 through 2007 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.47-1.90), having preexisting comorbidities (adjusted OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.59), and higher out-of-pocket pharmacy costs (adjusted OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.40-1.97). Women younger than 50 years were more likely to be tested if they had stage I versus stage II disease (P<.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In an insured population of women younger than 65 years, GEP testing increased after its inclusion in clinical practice guidelines and mounting evidence. Additional research is needed to better understand oncologists' decision not to order GEP testing for their patients who are otherwise eligible.
Copyright © 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26483061      PMCID: PMC4973473          DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0150

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw        ISSN: 1540-1405            Impact factor:   11.908


  34 in total

Review 1.  Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  John Hornberger; Michael D Alvarado; Chien Rebecca; Hialy R Gutierrez; Tiffany M Yu; William J Gradishar
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  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

3.  Quality of end-of-life care among rural Medicare beneficiaries with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Shinobu Watanabe-Galloway; Wanqing Zhang; Kate Watkins; K M Islam; Preethy Nayar; Eugene Boilesen; Lina Lander; Hongmei Wang; Fang Qiu
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 4.333

4.  Economic evaluation of genomic test-directed chemotherapy for early-stage lymph node-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter S Hall; Christopher McCabe; Robert C Stein; David Cameron
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes.

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

6.  The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007).

Authors:  William B Wong; Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Louis P Garrison; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer.

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

8.  Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study.

Authors:  Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Christopher Wale; John Forbes; Elizabeth A Mallon; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Anita Dunbier; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Steven Shak
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-08       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  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

10.  Utilization of Oncotype DX in an Inner City Population: Race or Place?

Authors:  Amber A Guth; Susan Fineberg; Kezhen Fei; Rebeca Franco; Nina A Bickell
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2013-12-18
View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Initiation of Trastuzumab by Women Younger Than 64 Years for Adjuvant Treatment of Stage I-III Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Huei-Ting Tsai; Claudine Isaacs; Filipa C Lynce; Suzanne C O'Neill; Chunfu Liu; Marc D Schwartz; Nandini Selvam; Yingjun Zhou; Arnold L Potosky
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 11.908

4.  Multilevel Influences on Patient-Oncologist Communication about Genomic Test Results: Oncologist Perspectives.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Kathryn L Taylor; Jonathan Clapp; Jinani Jayasekera; Claudine Isaacs; Deena Mary Atieh Graham; Stuart L Goldberg; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2018-08-21

5.  Question Prompt List to Support Patient-Provider Communication in the Use of the 21-Gene Recurrence Test: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Jinani Jayasekera; Susan T Vadaparampil; Susan Eggly; Richard L Street; Tanina Foster Moore; Claudine Isaacs; Hyo S Han; Bianca Augusto; Jennifer Garcia; Katherine Lopez; Suzanne C O'Neill
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2020-05-28

6.  Characterizing patient-oncologist communication in genomic tumor testing: The 21-gene recurrence score as an exemplar.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Susan T Vadaparampil; Richard L Street; Tanina Foster Moore; Claudine Isaacs; Hyo S Han; Bianca Augusto; Jennifer Garcia; Katherine Lopez; Matilda Brilleman; Jinani Jayasekera; Susan Eggly
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-09-03

7.  Endocrine therapy initiation, discontinuation and adherence and breast imaging among 21-gene recurrence score assay-eligible women under age 65.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Filipa Lynce; Deena Mary Atieh Graham; Calvin Chao; Vanessa B Sheppard; Yingjun Zhou; Chunfu Liu; Nandini Selvam; Marc D Schwartz; Arnold L Potosky
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 8.  Analyzing Precision Medicine Utilization with Real-World Data: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Michael P Douglas; Anika Kumar
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-04-01

9.  Hospital Rurality and Gene Expression Profiling for Early-Stage Breast Cancer among Iowa Residents (2010-2018).

Authors:  Danielle Riley; Mary Charlton; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Sneha Phadke; Brian J Smith; Adam Skibbe; Charles F Lynch
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 2.269

10.  Assessment of hormonal levels as prognostic markers and of their optimal cut-offs in small intestinal neuroendocrine tumours grade 2.

Authors:  Dimitrios Papantoniou; Malin Grönberg; Kalle Landerholm; Staffan Welin; Barbara Ziolkowska; Dennis Nordvall; Eva Tiensuu Janson
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 3.633

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.