S Martel1, M Lambertini2,3, R Simon4, C Matte5, C Prady1. 1. Département d'hémato-oncologie, cisss Montérégie centre/Hôpital Charles-Lemoyne, centre affilié de l'Université de Sherbrooke, Greenfield Park, QC. 2. Department of Medical Oncology and. 3. Breast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Département de chirurgie and. 5. Département de pathologie, cisss Montérégie centre/Hôpital Charles-Lemoyne, centre affilié de l'Université de Sherbrooke, Greenfield Park, QC.
Abstract
Background: Oncotype dx [odx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.)] is an approved prognostic tool for women with node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, her2-negative breast cancer. Because of cost, optimal use of this test is crucial, especially in a publicly funded health care system. We evaluated adherence with our provincial guidelines for odx requests, the management of patients with an intermediate recurrence score (rs), and the cost impact of odx. Methods: This retrospective study included 201 consecutive patients with an odx request from two university institutions in Quebec between May 2012 and December 2014. Concordance with provincial guidelines was estimated, with its 95% confidence interval (ci). For patients with an intermediate rs, factors influencing the final treatment decision were assessed. The cost impact of odx was derived from the proportion of patients for whom chemotherapy was not recommended. Results: In 93.0% of patients (95% ci: 89.5% to 96.6%), odx was ordered according to guidelines. The concordance was similar in both institutions (92.7%; 95% ci: 88.1% to 97.3%; and 93.6%; 95% ci: 88.2% to 99.0%). In 112 (55.7%), 78 (38.8%), and 9 (4.5%) patients, the rs suggested low, intermediate, and high risk respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, most patients (n = 58, 74.4%) did not receive chemotherapy, mainly because of patient preference and the absence of a clear proven benefit. Savings of CA$100,000 for the study period (2.5 years) were estimated to be associated with odx use. Conclusions: In our experience, the use of odx was concordant with published recommendations and had a positive cost impact.
Background: Oncotype dx [odx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA, U.S.A.)] is an approved prognostic tool for women with node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, her2-negative breast cancer. Because of cost, optimal use of this test is crucial, especially in a publicly funded health care system. We evaluated adherence with our provincial guidelines for odx requests, the management of patients with an intermediate recurrence score (rs), and the cost impact of odx. Methods: This retrospective study included 201 consecutive patients with an odx request from two university institutions in Quebec between May 2012 and December 2014. Concordance with provincial guidelines was estimated, with its 95% confidence interval (ci). For patients with an intermediate rs, factors influencing the final treatment decision were assessed. The cost impact of odx was derived from the proportion of patients for whom chemotherapy was not recommended. Results: In 93.0% of patients (95% ci: 89.5% to 96.6%), odx was ordered according to guidelines. The concordance was similar in both institutions (92.7%; 95% ci: 88.1% to 97.3%; and 93.6%; 95% ci: 88.2% to 99.0%). In 112 (55.7%), 78 (38.8%), and 9 (4.5%) patients, the rs suggested low, intermediate, and high risk respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, most patients (n = 58, 74.4%) did not receive chemotherapy, mainly because of patient preference and the absence of a clear proven benefit. Savings of CA$100,000 for the study period (2.5 years) were estimated to be associated with odx use. Conclusions: In our experience, the use of odx was concordant with published recommendations and had a positive cost impact.
Entities:
Keywords:
Early breast cancer; Oncotype dx; her2-negative disease; hormone receptor–positive disease; multigene assays; node-negative disease
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carol E DeSantis; Stacey A Fedewa; Ann Goding Sauer; Joan L Kramer; Robert A Smith; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Lyndsay N Harris; Nofisat Ismaila; Lisa M McShane; Fabrice Andre; Deborah E Collyar; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Elizabeth H Hammond; Nicole M Kuderer; Minetta C Liu; Robert G Mennel; Catherine Van Poznak; Robert C Bast; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joseph Gligorov; Xavier B Pivot; William Jacot; Hervé L Naman; Dominique Spaeth; Jean-Louis Misset; Rémy Largillier; Jean-Loup Sautiere; Anne de Roquancourt; Christophe Pomel; Philippe Rouanet; Roman Rouzier; Frederique M Penault-Llorca Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-06-25
Authors: Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Valentina I Petkov; Dave P Miller; Nadia Howlader; Nathan Gliner; Will Howe; Nicola Schussler; Kathleen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Rosemary Cress; Dennis Deapen; Sally L Glaser; Brenda Y Hernandez; Charles F Lynch; Lloyd Mueller; Ann G Schwartz; Stephen M Schwartz; Antoinette Stroup; Carol Sweeney; Thomas C Tucker; Kevin C Ward; Charles Wiggins; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lynne Penberthy; Steven Shak Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2016-06-08
Authors: Janet E Squires; Danielle Cho-Young; Laura D Aloisio; Robert Bell; Stephen Bornstein; Susan E Brien; Simon Decary; Melissa Demery Varin; Mark Dobrow; Carole A Estabrooks; Ian D Graham; Megan Greenough; Doris Grinspun; Michael Hillmer; Tanya Horsley; Jiale Hu; Alan Katz; Christina Krause; John Lavis; Wendy Levinson; Adrian Levy; Michelina Mancuso; Steve Morgan; Letitia Nadalin-Penno; Andrew Neuner; Tamara Rader; Wilmer J Santos; Gary Teare; Joshua Tepper; Amanda Vandyk; Michael Wilson; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 16.859