Gene expression profile testing for breast cancer and the use of chemotherapy, serious adverse effects, and costs of care
- 164 Downloads
As gene expression profile (GEP) testing for breast cancer may provide additional prognostic information to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, we examined the association between GEP testing and use of chemotherapy, serious chemotherapy-related adverse effects, and total charges during the 12 months following diagnosis. Medical record review was conducted for women age 30–64 years, with incident, non-metastatic, invasive breast cancer diagnosed 2006–2008 in a large, national health plan. Of 534 patients, 25.8% received GEP testing, 68.2% received chemotherapy, and 10.5% experienced a serious chemotherapy-related adverse effect. GEP testing was most commonly used in women at moderate clinical risk of recurrence (52.0 vs. 25.0% of low-risk women and 5.5% of high-risk). Controlling for the propensity to receive GEP testing, women who had GEP were less likely to receive chemotherapy (propensity adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval 0.62, 0.39–0.99). Use of GEP was associated with more chemotherapy use among women at low risk based on clinical characteristics (OR = 42.19; CI 2.50–711.82), but less use among women with a high risk based on clinical characteristics (OR = 0.12; CI 0.03–0.47). Use of GEP was not associated with chemotherapy for the moderate risk group. There was no significant relationship between GEP use and either serious chemotherapy-associated adverse effects or total charges. While GEP testing was associated with an overall decrease in adjuvant chemotherapy, we did not find differences in serious chemotherapy-associated adverse events or charges during the 12 months following diagnosis.
KeywordsBreast cancer Utilization Genomics
The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (P01CA130818). Drs. Haas, Phillips, and Liang received funding from a research grant from the Aetna Foundation for earlier related research.
- 2.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer v.1.20092009Google Scholar
- 8.Albain K, Barlow W, Shak S, Hortobagyi G, Livingston R, Yeh I et al. (2007) Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal, node-positive, ER-positive breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, 2007Google Scholar
- 11.Genomic Health 2005 Annual Report. Available from http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/GHDX/1288212664x0x237978/DBCCB2E0-6584-496A-ACB1-D67DDA497401/2005AR.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2011
- 12.Breastcancer.org. OcotypeDX Test (2011) Available at http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/testing/types/oncotype_dx.jsp. Accessed 21 May 2011
- 19.Gold JM, Najita JS, Lester S, Richardson AL, Morganstern DE, Chen WY et al. (2009) Personalizing treatment in early-stage breast cancer: the role of standard clinical factors and genomic information in adjuvant chemotherapy decision making. ASCO Annual Meeting, Orlando, 2009Google Scholar
- 22.Webber EM, Lin JS, Whitlock EP (2010) Oncotype DX tumor gene expression profiling in stage II colon cancer. Application: prognostic, risk prediction. PLoS Curr 2:RRN1177Google Scholar
- 25.Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT et al. (2010) Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11(1):55–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Carlson B (2010) Payers try new approaches to manage molecular diagnostics. Biotechnol Healthcare 7(3):26–30Google Scholar
- 33.Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ (2007) Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 297(3):278–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar