» Articles » PMID: 24455283

Utilization of Oncotype DX in an Inner City Population: Race or Place?

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2014 Jan 24
PMID 24455283
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Oncotype DX, a 21-gene-array analysis, can guide chemotherapy treatment decisions for women with ER+ tumors. Of 225 ER+ women participating in a patient assistance trial, 23% underwent Oncotype DX testing: 31% of whites, 21% of blacks, and 14% of Hispanics (P = 0.04) were tested. Only 3 white women were treated at municipal hospitals and none was tested. 3% of women treated in municipal hospital as compared to 30% treated at tertiary referral centers were tested (P = 0.001). Within tertiary referral centers, there was no racial difference in testing: 32% of whites, 29% of blacks, and 19% of Hispanics (P = 0.25). Multivariate analysis (model c-statistic = 0.76; P < 0.0001) revealed that women who underwent testing were more likely to have stage 1B (RR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.45-1.85) and to be treated after 2007 (RR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.01-1.65) and less likely to be treated at a municipal hospital (RR = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.04-0.94). Women treated at municipal hospitals were less likely to undergo testing resulting in a misleading racial disparity that is driven by site of care. As Oncotype DX can reduce overuse of chemotherapy, it is imperative to expand testing to those who could benefit from yet experience underuse of this test, namely, women treated at safety net hospitals. This trial is registered with NCT00233077.

Citing Articles

Development and validation of a clinical breast cancer tool for accurate prediction of recurrence.

Dhungana A, Vannier A, Zhao F, Freeman J, Saha P, Sullivan M NPJ Breast Cancer. 2024; 10(1):46.

PMID: 38879577 PMC: 11180107. DOI: 10.1038/s41523-024-00651-5.


Prediction of a Multi-Gene Assay (Oncotype DX and Mammaprint) Recurrence Risk Group Using Machine Learning in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer-The BRAIN Study.

Ji J, Ahn S, Yoo Y, Park S, Kim J, Jeong J Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(4).

PMID: 38398165 PMC: 10887075. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16040774.


Differential distribution of actual and surrogate oncotype DX recurrence scores in breast cancer patients by age, menopausal status, race, and body mass index.

Mohamed A, Olsson L, Geradts J Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023; 201(3):447-460.

PMID: 37453958 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-07025-8.


Use of a supervised machine learning model to predict Oncotype DX risk category in node-positive patients older than 50 years of age.

Williams A, Pawloski K, Wen H, Sevilimedu V, Thompson D, Morrow M Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022; 196(3):565-570.

PMID: 36269526 PMC: 10328094. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06763-5.


A Novel Surrogate Nomogram Capable of Predicting OncotypeDX Recurrence Score©.

Davey M, Jalali A, Ryan E, McLaughlin R, Sweeney K, Barry M J Pers Med. 2022; 12(7).

PMID: 35887614 PMC: 9318604. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12071117.


References
1.
Ademuyiwa F, Edge S, Erwin D, Orom H, Ambrosone C, Underwood 3rd W . Breast cancer racial disparities: unanswered questions. Cancer Res. 2010; 71(3):640-4. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3021. View

2.
Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S . American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(33):5287-312. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2364. View

3.
Kondo M, Hoshi S, Yamanaka T, Ishiguro H, Toi M . Economic evaluation of the 21-gene signature (Oncotype DX) in lymph node-negative/positive, hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer based on Japanese validation study (JBCRG-TR03). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 127(3):739-49. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1243-y. View

4.
Bickell N, Neuman J, Fei K, Franco R, Joseph K . Quality of breast cancer care: perception versus practice. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(15):1791-5. PMC: 3383180. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.7605. View

5.
Bach P, Pham H, Schrag D, Tate R, Hargraves J . Primary care physicians who treat blacks and whites. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(6):575-84. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa040609. View