Stephane Thibodeau1, Ioannis A Voutsadakis1,2,3. 1. Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Clinical Sciences, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. 3. Algoma District Cancer Program, Sault Area Hospital, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of the Oncotype Dx assay on the treatment of patients with Estrogen Receptor (ER)-positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary lymph node-negative or micrometastatic carcinoma of the breast in a single cancer center. In addition, patients with intermediate Oncotype Dx recurrence scores were analyzed to assess the factors influencing therapeutic decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from medical records of women diagnosed with carcinoma of the breast and qualified for the Oncotype Dx assay were extracted (OncoDx cohort). Patient demographic and cancer characteristics, genomic report, and course of treatment data, including survival outcomes and treatment decision-making, were analyzed. A matched cohort of patients with similar tumor stage and biology (ER-positive, HER2-negative) from the era before the introduction of the Oncotype Dx assay was analyzed for comparison (pre-OncoDx cohort). RESULTS: Two hundred and one patients were included in the OncoDx cohort and one hundred and sixty patients were included in the pre-OncoDx cohort. Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) was low (<11) in fifty-six patients (28%), intermediate (11-25) in one hundred and twenty-three patients (61.5%) and high (>25) in twenty one patients (10.5%). Demographic and cancer clinicopathologic characteristics between OncoDx and pre-OncoDx cohorts were similar. Overall, 10.9% of the patients in the OncoDx cohort received adjuvant chemotherapy, versus 23.8% of the patients in the pre-OncoDx cohort (Fisher exact p=0.003). Fewer patients were recommended adjuvant chemotherapy in the OncoDx era compared to the pre-OncoDx era (17.9% vs 30.6%, respectively, Fisher exact p=0.006). The decision to recommend chemotherapy within the intermediate-risk cohort was influenced by the patient's RS. The mean RS of patients in the intermediate-risk cohort who did not receive chemotherapy was 21.5 while the score of those that received chemotherapy was 24.6 (p=0.000). The series confirmed excellent PFS and OS for both OncoDx and pre-OncoDx cohorts. CONCLUSION: This single cancer center analysis confirms the avoidance of chemotherapy in the great majority of patients with early ER-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative or micrometastatic carcinoma of the breast since the introduction of the Oncotype Dx assay. A higher recurrence risk score within the intermediate group may influence the decision for chemotherapy inclusion in the adjuvant treatment plan. A lower PR percentage by IHC and higher grade may predict higher Oncotype Dx scores.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of the Oncotype Dx assay on the treatment of patients with Estrogen Receptor (ER)-positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary lymph node-negative or micrometastatic carcinoma of the breast in a single cancer center. In addition, patients with intermediate Oncotype Dx recurrence scores were analyzed to assess the factors influencing therapeutic decisions for adjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from medical records of women diagnosed with carcinoma of the breast and qualified for the Oncotype Dx assay were extracted (OncoDx cohort). Patient demographic and cancer characteristics, genomic report, and course of treatment data, including survival outcomes and treatment decision-making, were analyzed. A matched cohort of patients with similar tumor stage and biology (ER-positive, HER2-negative) from the era before the introduction of the Oncotype Dx assay was analyzed for comparison (pre-OncoDx cohort). RESULTS: Two hundred and one patients were included in the OncoDx cohort and one hundred and sixty patients were included in the pre-OncoDx cohort. Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) was low (<11) in fifty-six patients (28%), intermediate (11-25) in one hundred and twenty-three patients (61.5%) and high (>25) in twenty one patients (10.5%). Demographic and cancer clinicopathologic characteristics between OncoDx and pre-OncoDx cohorts were similar. Overall, 10.9% of the patients in the OncoDx cohort received adjuvant chemotherapy, versus 23.8% of the patients in the pre-OncoDx cohort (Fisher exact p=0.003). Fewer patients were recommended adjuvant chemotherapy in the OncoDx era compared to the pre-OncoDx era (17.9% vs 30.6%, respectively, Fisher exact p=0.006). The decision to recommend chemotherapy within the intermediate-risk cohort was influenced by the patient's RS. The mean RS of patients in the intermediate-risk cohort who did not receive chemotherapy was 21.5 while the score of those that received chemotherapy was 24.6 (p=0.000). The series confirmed excellent PFS and OS for both OncoDx and pre-OncoDx cohorts. CONCLUSION: This single cancer center analysis confirms the avoidance of chemotherapy in the great majority of patients with early ER-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative or micrometastatic carcinoma of the breast since the introduction of the Oncotype Dx assay. A higher recurrence risk score within the intermediate group may influence the decision for chemotherapy inclusion in the adjuvant treatment plan. A lower PR percentage by IHC and higher grade may predict higher Oncotype Dx scores.
Entities:
Keywords:
Oncotype Dx; breast cancer; prediction; recurrence risk; retrospective
Authors: Xiao-Jun Ma; Ranelle Salunga; Sonika Dahiya; Wilson Wang; Erin Carney; Virginie Durbecq; Adrian Harris; Paul Goss; Christos Sotiriou; Mark Erlander; Dennis Sgroi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: A García Fernández; C Chabrera; M García Font; M Fraile; J M Lain; S Gónzalez; I Barco; C González; J Torres; M Piqueras; L Cirera; E Veloso; A Pessarrodona; N Giménez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Ping Tang; Jianmin Wang; David G Hicks; Xi Wang; Linda Schiffhauer; Loralee McMahon; Qi Yang; Michelle Shayne; Alissa Huston; Kristin A Skinner; Jennifer Griggs; Gary Lyman Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Nadia Howlader; Sean F Altekruse; Christopher I Li; Vivien W Chen; Christina A Clarke; Lynn A G Ries; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Roman Rouzier; Paolo Pronzato; Elisabeth Chéreau; Josh Carlson; Barnaby Hunt; William J Valentine Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Dennis C Sgroi; Erin Carney; Elizabeth Zarrella; Lauren Steffel; Shemeica N Binns; Dianne M Finkelstein; Jackie Szymonifka; Atul K Bhan; Lois E Shepherd; Yi Zhang; Catherine A Schnabel; Mark G Erlander; James N Ingle; Peggy Porter; Hyman B Muss; Katherine I Pritchard; Dongsheng Tu; David L Rimm; Paul E Goss Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joseph Do Woong Choi; T Michael D Hughes; Gavin Marx; John Boyages; Josie Rutovitz; Csilla Hasovits; Andrew Parasyn; Senarath Edirimanne; Nicholas K Ngui Journal: Breast J Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 2.269