Xiaofu Zhu1, Susan Dent1,2, Lise Paquet3, Tinghua Zhang4, Daniel Tesolin5, Nadine Graham1, Olexiy Aseyev6, Xinni Song1. 1. The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada. 2. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada. 4. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada. 5. Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON P3E 2C6, Canada. 6. Regional Cancer Care Northwest, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 6V4, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature suggests that medical oncologists differ on how they use the Oncotype DX (ODX) genomic assay for making decisions about systemic therapy in breast cancer patients. Given the emergence of data supporting the use of genomic profiling for the prognosis and predicting benefit of chemotherapy, we surveyed medical oncologists in Canada to assess their usage and perception of the ODX assay. METHODS: A 34-item survey was distributed to Canadian medical oncologists via the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Data was collected on physician demographics, ODX usage patterns, and physicians' perception of the impact clinical and pathologic characteristics make on ODX utilization. RESULTS: Response rate was 20.6% with 47 responses received from 228 survey sent. Forty-five responses were eligible for analysis. Sixty-two percent (28/45) of respondents treated predominantly breast cancer, and 60% (27/45) have been in practice for at least 10 years. The most cited reason for using ODX was to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy (64%; 29/45). Sixty-seven percent (30/45) deferred making treatment decisions until ODX testing was completed. Factors most strongly impacting ODX utilization included: patient request, medical comorbidities and tumor grade. In clinical scenarios, ODX was more frequently selected for patients aged 40-65 (vs. <40 or >65), grade 2 tumors (vs. grade 1 or 3), and Ki-67 index of 10-20% (vs. <10% or >20%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated that Canadian medical oncologists are preferentially using ODX to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy. The utilization of ODX is mainly in patients with intermediate clinical and pathologic features.
BACKGROUND: The literature suggests that medical oncologists differ on how they use the Oncotype DX (ODX) genomic assay for making decisions about systemic therapy in breast cancerpatients. Given the emergence of data supporting the use of genomic profiling for the prognosis and predicting benefit of chemotherapy, we surveyed medical oncologists in Canada to assess their usage and perception of the ODX assay. METHODS: A 34-item survey was distributed to Canadian medical oncologists via the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Data was collected on physician demographics, ODX usage patterns, and physicians' perception of the impact clinical and pathologic characteristics make on ODX utilization. RESULTS: Response rate was 20.6% with 47 responses received from 228 survey sent. Forty-five responses were eligible for analysis. Sixty-two percent (28/45) of respondents treated predominantly breast cancer, and 60% (27/45) have been in practice for at least 10 years. The most cited reason for using ODX was to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy (64%; 29/45). Sixty-seven percent (30/45) deferred making treatment decisions until ODX testing was completed. Factors most strongly impacting ODX utilization included: patient request, medical comorbidities and tumor grade. In clinical scenarios, ODX was more frequently selected for patients aged 40-65 (vs. <40 or >65), grade 2 tumors (vs. grade 1 or 3), and Ki-67 index of 10-20% (vs. <10% or >20%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated that Canadian medical oncologists are preferentially using ODX to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy. The utilization of ODX is mainly in patients with intermediate clinical and pathologic features.
Entities:
Keywords:
Oncotype DX; breast cancer; clinicopathologic factors
Authors: Soo Jin Park; Moo Hyun Lee; Sun-Young Kong; Mi Kyung Song; Jungnam Joo; Youngmee Kwon; Eun-Gyeong Lee; Jai Hong Han; Sung Hoon Sim; So-Youn Jung; Seeyoun Lee; Keun Seok Lee; In Hae Park; Eun Sook Lee Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Yonina R Murciano-Goroff; Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar N Bristol; Peter Groeneveld; Susan M Domchek; U Nkiru Motanya; Katrina Armstrong Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: J Loncaster; A Armstrong; S Howell; G Wilson; R Welch; A Chittalia; W J Valentine; N J Bundred Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Kathy S Albain; William E Barlow; Steven Shak; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Robert B Livingston; I-Tien Yeh; Peter Ravdin; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Nancy E Davidson; George W Sledge; Eric P Winer; Clifford Hudis; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; Kathleen I Pritchard; Lois Shepherd; Julie R Gralow; Carl Yoshizawa; D Craig Allred; C Kent Osborne; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Laura E Leggett; Diane L Lorenzetti; Tom Noseworthy; Simran Tiwana; Gail Mackean; Fiona Clement Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter M Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
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