4.5 Article

The Influence of a Gene Expression Profile on Breast Cancer Decisions

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 99, Issue 6, Pages 319-323

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jso.21244

Keywords

breast cancer; recurrence score; adjuvant therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The Oncotype Dx (R) Recurrence Score (RS), is often employed in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, node negative (ER+LN-) breast cancer. We investigated the impact of the RS on actual chemotherapy administration and the effect of the assay on a panel of breast oncology experts. Patients and Methods: The prospective adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations (prior to RS) and actual adjuvant therapy (after RS) for consecutive patients with ER+LN- breast cancer were recorded. After 6 months and with the same information, a panel of five experts made adjuvant therapy recommendations with and without RS and rated the strength of their recommendations. Rates of panel consensus, recommendation changes, and changes in recommendation strength were compared. Results: There were 29 patients (28 women). RS results altered the plan for chemotherapy in 9 patients (31%): 7 of 13 patients (54%) initially recommended for chemotherapy did not receive it, and 2 of 16 (13%) received chemotherapy following initial recommendations against it. RS results changed the panel's chemotherapy recommendation in 7 patients (24%): 5 of 12( 42%) recommendations for changed to against, and 2 of 17 (12%) recommendations against changed to for chemotherapy. RS increased consensus by the panel 10%, but did not increase the reported strength in chemotherapy recommendations. Conclusions: RS results were associated with real-world decision changes in 31% of patients and 24% of panel recommendations and increased panel consensus by 10%. However RS did not increase the strength of penelist's recommendations. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009:99: 319-323. Published 2009 Wiley-liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available