Rosemary D Cress1,2, Yingjia S Chen3, Cyllene R Morris4, Helen Chew5, Kenneth W Kizer4,6,7. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA. rdcress@ucdavis.edu. 2. Cancer Registry of Greater California, Public Health Institute, 1825 Bell Street, Suite 102, Sacramento, CA, 95825, USA. rdcress@ucdavis.edu. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA. 4. California Cancer Reporting and Epidemiologic Surveillance Program, Institute for Population Health Improvement, University of California Davis Health System, Sacramento, CA, USA. 5. Division of Hematology/Oncology, UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. 6. School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA. 7. Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the utilization of gene expression profiling (GEP) among California breast cancer patients, identify predictors of use of GEP, and evaluate how utilization of GEP influenced treatment of early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: All women diagnosed with hormone-receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry between January 2008 and December 2010 were linked to Oncotype DX (ODX) assay results. RESULTS: Overall, 26.7 % of 23,789 eligible patients underwent the assay during the study period. Women age 65 or older were much less likely than women under age 50 to be tested (15.1 vs. 41.4 %, p < 0.001). Black women were slightly less likely and Asian women were slightly more likely than non-Hispanic white women to undergo GEP with the ODX assay (22.2 and 28.9 vs. 26.9 %, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients residing in low SES census tracts had the lowest use of the test (8.9 %), with the proportion increasing with higher SES category. Women with Medicaid health insurance were less likely than other women to be tested (17.7 vs. 27.5 %, p < 0.001). Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) was associated with the ODX recurrence score, although only 63 % of patients whose recurrence scores indicated a high benefit received ACT. Of patients not tested, 15 % received ACT. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly three-fourths of eligible breast cancer patients in California during the 3-year period 2008 through 2010 did not undergo GEP. As a result, it is likely that many women unnecessarily received ACT and suffered associated morbidity. In addition, some high-risk women who would have benefited most from ACT were not identified.
PURPOSE: To describe the utilization of gene expression profiling (GEP) among Californiabreast cancerpatients, identify predictors of use of GEP, and evaluate how utilization of GEP influenced treatment of early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: All women diagnosed with hormone-receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry between January 2008 and December 2010 were linked to Oncotype DX (ODX) assay results. RESULTS: Overall, 26.7 % of 23,789 eligible patients underwent the assay during the study period. Women age 65 or older were much less likely than women under age 50 to be tested (15.1 vs. 41.4 %, p < 0.001). Black women were slightly less likely and Asian women were slightly more likely than non-Hispanic white women to undergo GEP with the ODX assay (22.2 and 28.9 vs. 26.9 %, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients residing in low SES census tracts had the lowest use of the test (8.9 %), with the proportion increasing with higher SES category. Women with Medicaid health insurance were less likely than other women to be tested (17.7 vs. 27.5 %, p < 0.001). Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) was associated with the ODX recurrence score, although only 63 % of patients whose recurrence scores indicated a high benefit received ACT. Of patients not tested, 15 % received ACT. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly three-fourths of eligible breast cancerpatients in California during the 3-year period 2008 through 2010 did not undergo GEP. As a result, it is likely that many women unnecessarily received ACT and suffered associated morbidity. In addition, some high-risk women who would have benefited most from ACT were not identified.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Cancer registry; Chemotherapy; Gene expression profiling; Genomics
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Huei-Ting Tsai; Calvin Chao; Chunfu Liu; Bola F Ekezue; Nandini Selvam; Larry G Kessler; Yingjun Zhou; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joan L Warren; Eboneé N Butler; Jennifer Stevens; Christopher S Lathan; Anne-Michelle Noone; Kevin C Ward; Linda C Harlan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Ron Balassanian; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Amy Cyr; Anthony D Elias; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon Hermes Giordano; Matthew Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Clifford A Hudis; Steven J Isakoff; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Meena Moran; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Kilian E Salerno; Lee S Schwartzberg; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; George Somlo; Melinda Telli; John H Ward; Dorothy A Shead; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-03 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: Megan C Roberts; Morris Weinberger; Stacie B Dusetzina; Michaela A Dinan; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Lisa A Carey; Melissa A Troester; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
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
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: 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
Authors: Austin D Williams; Kate R Pawloski; Hannah Y Wen; Varadan Sevilimedu; Donna Thompson; Monica Morrow; Mahmoud El-Tamer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Yunan Han; Zhi-Feng Miao; Min Lian; Lindsay L Peterson; Graham A Colditz; Ying Liu Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Douglas W Blayney; Melora K Simon; Beatrice Podtschaske; Scott Ramsey; Margaret Shyu; Craig Lindquist; Arnold Milstein Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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
Authors: Frances B Maguire; Cyllene R Morris; Arti Parikh-Patel; Rosemary D Cress; Theresa H M Keegan; Chin-Shang Li; Patrick S Lin; Kenneth W Kizer Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2019-04-04
Authors: Nicholas Acuna; Jesse J Plascak; Jennifer Tsui; Antoinette M Stroup; Adana A M Llanos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lindsay J Collin; Ming Yan; Renjian Jiang; Kevin C Ward; Brittany Crawford; Mylin A Torres; Keerthi Gogineni; Preeti D Subhedar; Samantha Puvanesarajah; Mia M Gaudet; Lauren E McCullough Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2019-09-26