4.7 Article

The 21-gene recurrence score assay impacts adjuvant therapy recommendations for ER-positive, node-negative and node-positive early breast cancer resulting in a risk-adapted change in chemotherapy use

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 618-624

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds512

Keywords

adjuvant; breast cancer; chemotherapy; node negative; node positive; recurrence score

Categories

Funding

  1. Genomic Health Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We carried out a prospective clinical study to evaluate the impact of the Recurrence Score (RS) on treatment decisions in early breast cancer (EBC). Patients and methods: A total of 379 eligible women with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), HER2-negative EBC and 0-3 positive lymph nodes were enrolled. Treatment recommendations, patients' decisional conflict, physicians' confidence before and after knowledge of the RS and actual treatment data were recorded. Results: Of the 366 assessable patients 244 were node negative (NO) and 122 node positive (N+). Treatment recommendations changed in 33% of all patients (NO 30%, N+ 39%). In 38% of all patients (NO 39%, N+ 37%) with an initial recommendation for chemoendocrine therapy, the post-RS recommendation changed to endocrine therapy, in 25% (NO 22%, N+ 39%) with an initial recommendation for endocrine therapy only to combined chemoendocrine therapy, respectively. A patients' decisional conflict score improved by 6% (P = 0.028) and physicians' confidence increased in 45% (P < 0.001) of all cases. Overall, 33% (NO 29%, N+ 38%) of fewer patients actually received chemotherapy as compared with patients recommended chemotherapy pre-test. Using the test was cost-saving versus current clinical practice. Conclusion: RS-guided chemotherapy decision-making resulted in a substantial modification of adjuvant chemotherapy usage in node-negative and node-positive ER+ EBC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available