Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 151, Issue 1, pp 149–156 | Cite as

Oncotype Dx assay and breast cancer in the United States: usage and concordance with chemotherapy

  • Lindsey Enewold
  • Ann M. Geiger
  • JoAnne Zujewski
  • Linda C. Harlan
Epidemiology

Abstract

The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay (Oncotype DX) predicts the likelihood of breast cancer recurrence and chemotherapy responsiveness. The aims of this study were to describe temporal trends in assay usage, to investigate factors associated with the receipt of the assay and to determine how the assay is associated with treatment decisions. Random samples of stage I–II female breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2004, 2005 and 2010 as reported to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program were included. Among women diagnosed in 2010 with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), lymph node-negative (LN−) tumors, factors associated with receipt of the assay were identified and the likelihood of chemotherapy by RS was estimated. Assay usage increased over time (ER+/LN−:8.0–27.0 %, p < 0.01; ER+/LN+: 2.0–15.7 %, p = 0.09; ER−: 0.2–1.7 %, p < 0.01) from 2005 to 2010. Receipt of the assay was associated with younger age, lower area income and tumor characteristics. Among women in the low (RS < 18) and high risk (RS > 30) categories, 3.3 and 95.9 % received chemotherapy, respectively. Within the intermediate risk group the receipt of chemotherapy varied: 12.8 % (RS: 18–19), 35.0 % (RS: 20–23) and 84.0 % (RS: 24–30). During the study years, assay usage increased among women for whom the assay is and is not guideline recommended. Factors such as insurance and race/ethnicity do not appear to be associated with the receipt of the assay. The RS, as determined broadly via three categories and within the intermediate risk group, does appear to influence chemotherapy decisions.

Keywords

Female Breast cancer Tumor markers, biological/*genetics Chemotherapy, adjuvant SEER 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Cancer Institute contracts: HHSN261201000024C; HHSN261201000025C, HHSN261201000032C, HHSN261201000027C, HHSN261201000026C, HHSN261201000140C, HHSN261201000037C, HHSN261201000033C, HHSN261201000034C, HHSN261201000035C, HHSN261201000029C, HHSN261201000031C, HHSN261201000028C, and HHSN261201000030C. The authors have disclosed that they have no financial interests, arrangements, affiliations, or commercial interests with the manufacturers of any products discussed in this article or their competitors. This article was produced by employees of the US government as part of their official duties and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence—SEER 18 Regs Research Data+Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2012 Sub (2000–2010) Katrina/Rita population adjustment: linked to county attributes—total U.S., 1969–2011 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch. Released on April 2013, Submitted on November 2012
  2. 2.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Walker MG, Watson D, Park T et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(27):2817–2826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eifel P, Axelson JA, Costa J, Crowley J, Curran WJ Jr, Deshler A, Fulton S, Hendricks CB, Kemeny M, Kornblith AB et al (2001) National institutes of health consensus development conference statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:979–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker J (2007) Genomic health, Inc. Pharmacogenomics 8(4):397–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726–3734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toi M, Iwata H, Yamanaka T, Masuda N, Ohno S, Nakamura S, Nakayama T, Kashiwaba M, Kamigaki S, Kuroi K (2010) Clinical significance of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in hormone receptor-positive early stage primary breast cancer in the Japanese population. Cancer 116(13):3112–3118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF, Bast RC Jr (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(33):5287–5312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Comprehansive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. V 1.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#breast Accessed Nov 2013
  9. 9.
    Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S, Childs BH, Yoshizawa C, Rowley S, Shak S, Baehner FL, Ravdin PM, Davidson NE et al (2008) Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol 26:4063–4071CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT, Ravdin P, Bugarini R, Baehner FL, Davidson NE 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 11:55–65CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, Forbes J, Mallon EA, Salter J, Quinn E, Dunbier A, Baum M, Buzdar A et al (2010) Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 28:1829–1834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ClinicalTrials.gov. Tamoxifen citrate, Letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane with or without chemotherapy in treating patients with invasive RxPONDER breast cancer. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01272037?term=RxPONDER&rank=1 Accessed May 2014
  13. 13.
    Haas JS, Liang SY, Hassett MJ, Shiboski S, Elkin EB, Phillips KA (2011) Gene expression profile testing for breast cancer and the use of chemotherapy, serious adverse effects, and costs of care. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(2):619–626CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME, Blayney DW, Edge SB, Herman JG, Hudis CA, Marcom PK, Pettinga JE, Share D et al (2012) Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(18):2218–2226CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lund MJ, Mosunjac M, Davis KM, Gabram-Mendola S, Rizzo M, Bumpers HL, Hearn S, Zelnak A, Styblo T, O’Regan RM (2012) 21-Gene recurrence scores: racial differences in testing, scores, treatment, and outcome. Cancer 118(3):788–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen C, Dhanda R, Tseng WY, Forsyth M, Patt DA (2013) Evaluating use characteristics for the oncotype dx 21-gene recurrence score and concordance with chemotherapy use in early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract/Am Soc Clin Oncol 9(4):182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeFrank JT, Salz T, Reeder-Hayes K, Brewer NT (2013) Who gets genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk? Public Health Genom 16(5):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carlson JJ, Roth JA (2013) The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 141(1):13–22CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelly CM, Krishnamurthy S, Bianchini G, Litton JK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L (2010) Utility of oncotype DX risk estimates in clinically intermediate risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-normal, grade II, lymph node-negative breast cancers. Cancer 116(22):5161–5167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Cancer Institute. SEER registry groupings for analyses. http://seer.cancer.gov/registries/terms.html Accessed 05/07/2013
  21. 21.
    Breast (2010) In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al., (eds) AJCC cancer staging manual 7th ed, Springer, New York, pp 347–376. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/breast/healthprofessional/page3
  22. 22.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program (2014) Race recode changes. http://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/variables/seer/race_ethnicity/ Accessed Aug 2014
  24. 24.
    American Hospital Association: American Hospital Association Annual Survery Database. http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/data-and-directories.shtml
  25. 25.
    Genomic Health (2014) Press release: medicare contractor establishes reimbursement coverage policy for genomic health’s Oncotype DX(TM) breast cancer test. http://investor.genomichealth.com/releaseDetail.cfm?releaseID=184309 Accessed Aug 2014
  26. 26.
    Genomic Health (2014) Press release: genomic health announces national agreement with Aetna. http://investor.genomichealth.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=219910 Accessed Aug 2014
  27. 27.
    BlueCross BlueShield of Mississippi (2014) Assays of genetic expression in tumor tissue as a technique to determine prognosis in patients with breast cancer. https://www.bcbsms.com/index.php?q=provider-medical-policy-search.html&action=viewPolicy&path=%2Fpolicy%2Femed%2FAssays_of_Genetic_Expression_in_Tumor_Tissue_as_a_Technique_to_Determine_Prognosis_in_Patients_with_Breast_Cancer.html Accessed Aug 2014
  28. 28.
    BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina (2014) Assays of genetic expression to determine prognosis of breast cancer. http://www.bcbsnc.com/assets/services/public/pdfs/medicalpolicy/assays_of_genetic_expression_to_determine_prognosis_of_breast_cancer.pdf Accessed Aug 2014
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Zujewski JA, Kamin L (2008) Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: the TAILORx trial. Future Oncol 4(5):603–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    ClinicalTrials.gov. (2013) Hormone therapy with or without combination chemotherapy in treating women who have undergone surgery for node-negative breast cancer (The TAILORx Trial) http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00310180 Accessed Dec 2013

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey Enewold
    • 1
  • Ann M. Geiger
    • 1
  • JoAnne Zujewski
    • 1
  • Linda C. Harlan
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Research ProgramNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations