Julie A Lynch1,2, Brygida Berse1,3,4, Nicole Coomer5, John Kautter1. 1. RTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Veterans Health Administration, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA. 5. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated national patient-level utilization of the 21-gene recurrence score (21-gene RS) test among Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer. We analyzed clinical, demographic, and regional factors that predict testing. METHODS: Using 2010-2013 Medicare claims, we conducted a retrospective study of breast cancer patients. The outcome variable was whether the patient underwent testing. Independent variables expected to predict testing were age, gender, race, Medicaid status, clinical characteristics, and hospital referral region (HRR). RESULTS: From 2010 to 2013, the number of test orders increased by 23.0%. Of the 256,818 patients identified in 2011-2012 claims, 25,352 (9.9%) underwent the 21-gene RS test. Estrogen receptor-positive status was the strongest positive predictor of testing (odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.48-2.69). White patients were more likely to be tested than minorities (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.39-1.52). Secondary cancer was the strongest negative predictor. Medicaid recipients were less likely to be tested (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.78). The likelihood of testing decreased with increasing age and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread implementation of the 21-gene RS test, minorities and Medicaid recipients had less access to testing. Many patients with serious comorbidities or advanced age were tested even though the risk algorithm may not have been applicable to them.Genet Med advance online publication 23 March 2017.
PURPOSE: We evaluated national patient-level utilization of the 21-gene recurrence score (21-gene RS) test among Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer. We analyzed clinical, demographic, and regional factors that predict testing. METHODS: Using 2010-2013 Medicare claims, we conducted a retrospective study of breast cancer patients. The outcome variable was whether the patient underwent testing. Independent variables expected to predict testing were age, gender, race, Medicaid status, clinical characteristics, and hospital referral region (HRR). RESULTS: From 2010 to 2013, the number of test orders increased by 23.0%. Of the 256,818 patients identified in 2011-2012 claims, 25,352 (9.9%) underwent the 21-gene RS test. Estrogen receptor-positive status was the strongest positive predictor of testing (odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.48-2.69). White patients were more likely to be tested than minorities (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.39-1.52). Secondary cancer was the strongest negative predictor. Medicaid recipients were less likely to be tested (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.78). The likelihood of testing decreased with increasing age and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread implementation of the 21-gene RS test, minorities and Medicaid recipients had less access to testing. Many patients with serious comorbidities or advanced age were tested even though the risk algorithm may not have been applicable to them.Genet Med advance online publication 23 March 2017.
Authors: Aaron J Feinstein; Jessica Long; Pamela R Soulos; Xiaomei Ma; Jeph Herrin; Kevin D Frick; Anees B Chagpar; Harlan M Krumholz; James B Yu; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Xiaojuan Mi; Shelby D Reed; Bradford R Hirsch; Gary H Lyman; Lesley H Curtis Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Karen Ruth; Elin R Sigurdson; Eric Ross; Yu-Ning Wong; Sameer A Patel; Marcia Boraas; Neal S Topham; Brian L Egleston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 44.544
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
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: 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
Authors: Molly E Klein; David J Dabbs; Yongli Shuai; Adam M Brufsky; Rachel Jankowitz; Shannon L Puhalla; Rohit Bhargava Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Kelsey E Larson; Stephanie A Valente; Chirag Shah; Rahul D Tendulkar; Sheen Cherian; Jame Abraham; Courtney Yanda; Chao Tu; Jessica Echle; Stephen R Grobmyer Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2018-08-23
Authors: Ronnie Zipkin; Andrew Schaefer; Mary Chamberlin; Tracy Onega; Alistair J O'Malley; Erika L Moen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 4.452
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