Psychosocial and Quality of Life in Women Receiving the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay: The Impact of Decision Style in Women with Intermediate RS

Characterizing patient-oncologist communication in genomic tumor testing: The 21-gene recurrence score as an exemplar

OBJECTIVE

Women with early-stage, ER + breast cancer are recommend to receive genomic profiling tests, such as the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) test, to guide treatment decisions. We examined test- and treatment-related information discussed and the associations between RS categories and aspects of communication during patient-oncologist clinical encounters.

METHODS

As part of a larger trial, clinical encounters (N = 46) were audiorecorded and coded for 1) RS- and treatment-related information, 2) shared decision making, 3) patient active participation, and 4) oncologist patient-centered communication. We examined differences by RS category using mixed models, adjusting for nesting within oncologist.

RESULTS

Patients with a high RS were more likely to receive a chemotherapy recommendation (p < .01), hear about the risks/side effects of chemotherapy (p < .01), and offer their preferences (p = .02) than those with intermediate or low RS. Elements of shared decision making increased with RS. Oncologist patient-centered communication (M = 4.09/5, SD = .25) and patient active participation (M = 3.5/4, SD = 1.0) were high across RS.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that disease severity, rather than clinical uncertainty, impact treatment recommendations and shared decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Oncologists adjust test- and treatment-related information and shared decision making by disease severity. This information provides a framework to inform decision making in complex cancer and genomics settings.

Question Prompt List to Support Patient-Provider Communication in the Use of the 21-Gene Recurrence Test: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes

PURPOSE

The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay is used to guide breast cancer treatment decisions but can be poorly understood by patients. We examined the effects of a question prompt list (QPL) on knowledge, distress, and decisional conflict related to genomic testing and treatment in early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

We describe the feasibility and acceptability of the QPL and the impact of the QPL on knowledge, distress, and decisional conflict before and after the receipt of the QPL (MEND 2, N = 65). We also compared distress and decisional conflict between women who received the QPL (MEND 2, N = 65) and a comparable group of women who did not receive the QPL who participated in an earlier observational study within the same clinics (MEND 1, N = 136).

RESULTS

MEND 2 participants indicated high acceptability and feasibility using the QPL. Knowledge increased post-QPL (P < .01) but did not decrease distress. Decisional conflict was lower among women in MEND 2 compared with those in MEND 1 (P < .01), with no statistically significant differences in distress.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the QPL is feasible, acceptable, can improve knowledge and decrease decisional conflict in the large group of women deciding treatment while integrating RS test results.

Gene Expression Profiling Tests for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is a disease in which cells in the breast grow out of control. They often form a tumour that may be seen on an x-ray or felt as a lump.Gene expression profiling (GEP) tests are intended to help predict the risk of metastasis (spread of the cancer to other parts of the body) and to identify people who will most likely benefit from chemotherapy. We conducted a health technology assessment of four GEP tests (EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna) for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), or Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), depending on the type of study and outcome of interest, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients and providers for GEP tests.We performed an economic evidence review to identify published studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of each of the four GEP tests compared with usual care or with one another for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer. We adapted a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of care that includes a GEP test with usual care without a GEP test over a lifetime horizon. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests to be conducted in Ontario, compared with funding tests conducted through the out-of-country program and compared with no funding of tests in any location.To contextualize the potential value of GEP tests, we spoke with people who have been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer.

RESULTS

We included 68 studies in the clinical evidence review. Within the lymph-node-negative (LN-) population, GEP tests can prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence (GRADE: Moderate) and may predict chemotherapy benefit (GRADE: Low). The evidence for prognostic and predictive ability (ability to indicate the risk of an outcome and ability to predict who will benefit from chemotherapy, respectively) was lower for the lymph-node-positive (LN+) population (GRADE: Very Low to Low). GEP tests may also lead to changes in treatment (GRADE: Low) and generally may increase physician confidence in treatment recommendations (GRADE: Low).Our economic evidence review showed that GEP tests are generally cost-effective compared with usual care.Our primary economic evaluation showed that all GEP test strategies were more effective (led to more quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than usual care and can be considered cost-effective below a willingness-to-pay of $20,000 per QALY gained. There was some uncertainty in our results. At a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability of each test being cost-effective compared to usual care was 63.0%, 89.2%, 89.2%, and 100% for EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna, respectively.Sensitivity analyses showed our results were robust to variation in subgroups considered (i.e., LN+ and premenopausal), discount rates, age, and utilities. However, cost parameter assumptions did influence our results. Our scenario analysis comparing tests showed Oncotype DX was likely cost-effective compared with MammaPrint, and Prosigna was likely cost-effective compared with EndoPredict. When the GEP tests were compared with a clinical tool, the cost-effectiveness of the tests varied. Assuming a higher uptake of GEP tests, we estimated the budget impact to publicly fund GEP tests in Ontario would be between $1.29 million (Year 1) and $2.22 million (Year 5) compared to the current scenario of publicly funded GEP tests through the out-of-country program.Gene expression profiling tests are valued by patients and physicians for the additional information they provide for treatment decision-making. Patients are satisfied with what they learn from GEP tests and feel GEP tests can help reduce decisional uncertainty and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Gene expression profiling tests can likely prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence and some tests may also predict chemotherapy benefit. In people with breast cancer that is ER+, LN-, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, GEP tests are likely cost-effective compared with no testing. The GEP tests are also likely cost-effective in LN+ and premenopausal people. Compared with funding GEP tests through the out-of-country program, publicly funding GEP tests in Ontario would cost an additional $1 million to $2 million annually, assuming a higher uptake of tests. GEP tests are valued by both patients and physicians for chemotherapy treatment decision-making.

Expected Monetary Impact of Oncotype DX Score-Concordant Systemic Breast Cancer Therapy Based on the TAILORx Trial

BACKGROUND

TAILORx demonstrated that women with node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers and Oncotype DX recurrence scores (RS) of 0-25 had similar 9-year outcomes with endocrine vs chemo-endocrine therapy; evidence for women aged 50 years and younger and RS 16-25 was less clear. We estimated how expected changes in practice following the trial might affect US costs in the initial 12 months of care (initial costs).

METHODS

Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), SEER-Medicare, and SEER-Genomic Health Inc datasets were used to estimate Oncotype DX testing and chemotherapy rates and mean initial costs pre- and post-TAILORx (in 2018 dollars), assuming all women received Oncotype DX testing and score-suggested therapy posttrial. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact on costs of assumptions about compliance with testing and score-suggested treatment and estimation methods.

RESULTS

Pretrial mean initial costs were $2.816 billion. Posttrial, Oncotype DX testing costs were projected to increase from $115 to $231 million and chemotherapy use to decrease from 25% to 17%, resulting in initial care costs of $2.766 billion, or a net savings of $49 million (1.8% decrease). A small net savings was seen under most assumptions. The one exception was if all women aged 50 years and younger with tumors with RS 16-25 elected to receive chemotherapy, initial care costs could increase by $105 million (4% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Personalizing breast cancer treatment based on tumor genetic profiles could result in small cost decreases in the initial 12 months of care. Studies are needed to evaluate the long-term costs and nonmonetary benefits of personalized cancer care.

The association of socioeconomic status with receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

There are advantages to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer, particularly for those with higher-risk cancers, but little is known about factors that are associated with the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy outside of clinical trials. We examined whether use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy instead of adjuvant chemotherapy varies by nonclinical factors such as patient socioeconomic status or rural residence.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013-2014 at eight medical institutions were surveyed by mail regarding their experiences with breast cancer treatment, and this information was linked to hospital-based cancer registries. We examined the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy among women with histologically confirmed invasive stage I-III breast cancer and used regression models to examine the association of socioeconomic status with chemotherapy timing. We also explored potential mechanisms for those differences.

RESULTS

Over 29% of the chemotherapy sample overall received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant receipt was lower for those with income < $100,000 (AOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) even with adjustment for other demographics, stage, and biomarker status, and findings for education and a variable for both lowest education and income < $100,000 were similar. Rural/urban residence was not associated with neoadjuvant receipt. Differences by income in perceptions of the importance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy advantages and disadvantages did not appear to explain the differences in use by income.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multicenter sample of breast cancer patients, lower income was strongly associated with less receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Since patients with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present with later-stage disease, this pattern has the potential to contribute to breast cancer outcome disparities.

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genomic testing in cancer: a systematic review

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genetic testing in oncology are well known, however, it is unclear how these findings will generalize to more complex genomic testing. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing. Studies were selected for inclusion if they were published from January 2003 to January 2017 and addressed psychological and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing in adults. A review of four databases identified 9620 abstracts, with 22 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the included articles, 11 studies reported on outcomes of germline testing, with three articles assessing panel testing and eight SNP testing. No studies assessed the outcomes of WGS or WES. Eleven articles assessed the outcomes of somatic testing, including testing for cancer prognosis and for personalized therapies. Studies were biased toward breast cancer and Caucasian women with high education and socioeconomic status. While studies demonstrated limited adverse psychological outcomes associated with genomic testing, a lack of consistency in psychosocial measures precluded any meta-analysis. Changes in health behavior following positive results were limited, and in some cases risk perception was not altered following genomic testing. There is limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes and changes in health behavior following genomic testing to assess cancer risk. Findings from this review highlight the need for longitudinal research with superior methodological and theoretical design.

The impact of gene expression profile testing on confidence in chemotherapy decisions and prognostic expectations

PURPOSE

Little is known about whether gene expression profile (GEP) testing and specific recurrence scores (e.g., medium risk) improve women's confidence in their chemotherapy decision or perceived recurrence risk. We evaluate the relationship between these outcomes and GEP testing.

METHODS

We surveyed women eligible for GEP testing (stage I or II, Gr1-2, ER+, HER2-) identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry of Washington or Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2012 to 2016, approximately 0-4 years from diagnosis (N = 904, RR = 45.4%). Confidence in chemotherapy was measured as confident (Very, completely) versus Not Confident (Somewhat, A little, Not At All); perceived risk recurrence was recorded numerically (0-100%). Women reported their GEP test receipt (Yes, No, Unknown) and risk recurrence score (High, Intermediate, Low, Unknown). In our analytic sample (N = 833), we propensity score weighted the three test receipt cohorts and used propensity weighted multivariable regressions to examine associations between the outcomes and the three test receipt cohorts, with receipt stratified by score.

RESULTS

29.5% reported an unknown GEP test receipt; 86% being confident. Compared to no test receipt, an intermediate score (aOR 0.34; 95% CI 0.20-0.58), unknown score (aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.05-0.18), and unknown test receipt (aOR 0.37; 95% CI 0.24-0.57) were less likely to report confidence. Most women greatly overestimated their recurrence risk regardless of their test receipt or score.

CONCLUSIONS

GEP testing was not associated with greater confidence in chemotherapy decisions. Better communication about GEP testing and the implications for recurrence risk may improve women's decisional confidence.

Multilevel Influences on Patient-Oncologist Communication about Genomic Test Results: Oncologist Perspectives

Thousands of women with early-stage breast cancer receive gene-expression profile (GEP) tests to guide chemotherapy decisions. However, many patients report a poor understanding of how their test results inform treatment decision-making. We applied models of patient-centered communication and informed decision-making to assess which variables oncologists' perceive as most influential to effective communication with their patients about GEP results and intervention modalities and approaches that could support more effective conversations about treatment decisions in routine clinical care. Medical oncologists who were part of a practice group in the mid-Atlantic US completed an online, cross-sectional survey in 2016. These data were merged with de-identified electronic patient and practice data. Of the 83 oncologists contacted, 29 completed the survey (35% response rate, representing 52% of the test-eligible patients in the practice network). There were no significant differences between survey responders and nonresponders. Oncologists reported patient-related variables as most influential, including performance status (65.5%), pretesting preferences for chemotherapy (55.2%), and comprehension of complex test results (55.2%). Oncologists endorsed their experience with testing (58.6%) and their own confidence in using the test results (48.3%) as influential as well. They indicated that a clinical decision support tool incorporating patient comorbidities, age, and potential benefits from chemotherapy would support their own practice and that they could share these results and other means of communication support using print materials (79.3%) with their patients in clinic (72.4%). These preferred intervention characteristics could be integrated into routine care, ultimately facilitating more effective communication about genomic testing (such as GEP) and its role in treatment selection.

The influence of gene expression profiling on decisional conflict in decision making for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Women with early-stage breast cancer, of whom only 15% will experience a recurrence, are often conflicted or uncertain about taking chemotherapy. Gene expression profiling (GEP) of tumours informs risk prediction, potentially affecting treatment decisions. We examined whether receiving a GEP test score reduces decisional conflict in chemotherapy treatment decision making.

METHODS

A general population sample of 200 women completed the decisional conflict scale (DCS) at baseline (no GEP test score scenario) and after (scenario with GEP test score added) completing a discrete choice experiment survey for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy. We scaled the 16-item DCS total scores and subscores from 0 to 100 and calculated means, standard deviations and change in scores, with significance (p < 0.05) based on matched pairs t-tests.

RESULTS

We identified five respondent subgroups based on preferred treatment option; almost 40% did not change their chemotherapy decision after receiving GEP testing information. Total score and all subscores (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision) decreased significantly in the respondent subgroup who were unsure about taking chemotherapy initially but changed to no chemotherapy (n =33). In the subgroup of respondents (n = 25) who chose chemotherapy initially but changed to unsure, effective decision subscore increased significantly. In the overall sample, changes in total and all subscores were non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

GEP testing adds value for women initially unsure about chemotherapy treatment with a decrease in decisional conflict. However, for women who are confident about their treatment decisions, GEP testing may not add value. Decisions to request GEP testing should be personalised based on patient preferences.

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: does the use of Oncotype DX tumor gene expression profiling to guide treatment decisions improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer?

of

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of Oncotype DX testing to guide chemotherapy treatment decisions in women with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, or lymph node-positive early breast cancer who are receiving endocrine therapy. This recommendation statement updates a 2009 EGAPP statement on the use of gene expression profiling tests in breast cancer. Evidence of clinical validity for Oncotype DX was confirmed as adequate. With regard to clinical utility, although there was evidence from prospective retrospective studies that the Oncotype DX test predicts benefit from chemotherapy, and there was adequate evidence that the use of Oncotype DX gene expression profiling in clinical practice changes treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy, no direct evidence was found that the use of Oncotype DX testing leads to improved clinical outcomes.

RATIONALE

In women with early-stage invasive breast cancer, gene expression profiling is increasingly being used as an aid to estimate the likely benefit from chemotherapy treatment. In a previous recommendation statement, the EGAPP Working Group (EWG) found adequate evidence for clinical validity of some gene expression profiling tests in predicting distant disease recurrence in women with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, lymph-node-negative breast cancer who are treated with tamoxifen, but insufficient evidence that use of these tests for decisions about chemotherapy treatment has clinical utility. The current recommendation statement updates these findings for Oncotype DX and extends them to the population of women with lymph node-positive disease, using evidence from recent systematic reviews and other sources.

ANALYTIC VALIDITY

The previous recommendation statement found that evidence was inadequate to enable quantitative determination of the analytic validity of Oncotype DX. Analytic validity was not reconsidered in the updated recommendation statement because there remains no gold-standard test for comparison.

CLINICAL VALIDITY

The EWG found that new evidence published since the original evidence review supports the clinical validity of Oncotype DX in predicting risk of distant metastases in women with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer that is either node-negative or node-positive.

CLINICAL UTILITY

No direct evidence was found that use of Oncotype DX tumor gene expression profiling to guide treatment decisions improves clinical outcomes in women with early breast cancer. There is indirect evidence, from prospective retrospective studies on archived tissue samples from randomized controlled trials, that the Oncotype DX test can predict benefit from chemotherapy. Large, prospective, randomized, controlled trials currently in progress may provide evidence of clinical utility.

CONTEXTUAL ISSUES

Until definitive evidence for clinical utility is available, clinicians must decide on a case-by-case basis whether to offer the test to patients. Although Oncotype DX testing has been reported, on the basis of economic modeling studies, to be cost-effective in several different health-care systems and to save costs in the US health-care setting, studies were based on assumptions regarding the clinical utility of the test that require confirmation by clinical trial results.Genet Med 18 8, 770-779.

Clinicians' expectations for gene-driven cancer therapy

A new era of medicine is rapidly approaching, which will change not only pathological diagnosis but also medical decision-making. This paper raises the question of how well prepared doctors are to address the new issues that will soon confront them. The human genome has been completely sequenced and general understanding about cancer biology has increased enormously with understanding that unregulated gene function and complicated changes in signal pathways are related to uncontrolled cell growth. Thus, gene-driven therapy involving alterations to genes are recognized to present new therapy options. This advance will necessitate major changes to the decision-making aspect of physicians. This article focuses on defining the pertinent changes and addressing what they mean for practicing physicians.

Treatment decisions in estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer patients with intermediate oncotype DX recurrence score results

This retrospective study evaluated the impact of intermediate Recurrence Score^® results on adjuvant treatment decisions in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) early invasive breast cancer, comparing treatment recommendations pre-testing with actual treatments received post-testing. Of the 111 patients included in the analysis, 78 (70.3%) had hormonal therapy (HT) and 33 (29.7%) had chemohormonal therapy (CHT) recommendations pre-testing. The Recurrence Score was significantly higher in those with a pre-testing CHT recommendation compared with those with a pre-testing HT recommendation (median of 24 vs. 22; P = 0.047; Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon [MWW] test). Post-testing, treatment of 24 patients (21.6%) was different from their pre-testing recommendation. The difference between CHT recommendation rate pre-testing and the rate of CHT received post-testing was nonsignificant for the entire cohort and for patients’ subgroups (by age, tumor size, and grade) (P >0.17; McNemar’s test). Following classification of the cohort into two Recurrence Score subcategories (low-intermediate, [18-25]; high-intermediate, [26-30]), changes in treatment decisions (pre-testing recommendations vs. actual treatments received post testing) were reported for 16.5% of low-intermediate and 34.4% of high-intermediate patients. Post-testing, the rate of CHT decreased (by 58%) in the low-intermediate subcategory and increased (by 64%) in the high-intermediate subcategory (P <0.01, both subcategories). In logistic regression analyses, the Recurrence Score subcategory was the only significant predictor of changes in treatment decisions (pre-testing recommendations vs. actual treatments received post testing; P <0.01). The only significant difference between the two subsets of patients with such a change (HT to CHT, 11 patients; CHT to HT, 13 patients) was the Recurrence Score (median of 28 vs. 20, respectively; P = 0.0014; MWW test). These findings demonstrate that intermediate Recurrence Score results provide clinically relevant information and impact treatment decisions in ER + early breast cancer.

Association between genomic recurrence risk and well-being among breast cancer patients

Background

Gene expression profiling (GEP) is increasingly used in the rapidly evolving field of personalized medicine. We sought to evaluate the association between GEP-assessed of breast cancer recurrence risk and patients’ well-being.

Methods

Participants were Dutch women from 10 hospitals being treated for early stage breast cancer who were enrolled in the MINDACT trial (Microarray In Node-negative and 1 to 3 positive lymph node Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy). As part of the trial, they received a disease recurrence risk estimate based on a 70-gene signature and on standard clinical criteria as scored via a modified version of Adjuvant! Online. \Women completed a questionnaire 6–8 weeks after surgery and after their decision regarding adjuvant chemotherapy. The questionnaire assessed perceived understanding, knowledge, risk perception, satisfaction, distress, cancer worry and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), 6–8 weeks after surgery and decision regarding adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

Women (n = 347, response rate 62%) reported high satisfaction with and a good understanding of the GEP information they received. Women with low risk estimates from both the standard and genomic tests reported the lowest distress levels. Distress was higher predominately among patients who had received high genomic risk estimates, who did not receive genomic risk estimates, or who received conflicting estimates based on genomic and clinical criteria. Cancer worry was highest for patients with higher risk perceptions and lower satisfaction. Patients with concordant high-risk profiles and those for whom such profiles were not available reported lower quality of life.

Conclusion

Patients were generally satisfied with the information they received about recurrence risk based on genomic testing. Some types of genomic test results were associated with greater distress levels, but not with cancer worry or HRQoL.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN18543567

Engaging in health behaviors to lower risk for breast cancer recurrence

PURPOSE

While post-treatment breast cancer survivors face up to twice the cancer risk of the general population, modifiable health behaviors may somewhat reduce this risk. We sought to better understand health behaviors that early stage breast cancer survivors engage in to reduce recurrence risk.

METHODS

Data came from a cross-sectional multi-site survey of 186 early-stage breast cancer survivors who received genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk (Oncotype DX) during their clinical care. Study outcomes were meeting health behavior recommendations (daily fruit and vegetable intake, regular physical activity, and having a healthy body mass index (BMI)).

RESULTS

Approximately three-quarters of survivors we surveyed believed the 3 behaviors might reduce their cancer risk but many did not engage in these behaviors for this purpose: 62% for BMI, 36% for fruit and vegetable consumption, and 37% for physical activity. Survivors with higher recurrence risk, as indicated by their genomic test results, were no more likely to meet any of the three health behavior recommendations. Adherence to health behavior recommendations was higher for women who were white, college-educated, and had higher incomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Many nonadherent breast cancer survivors wish to use these behavioral strategies to reduce their risk for recurrence, suggesting an important opportunity for intervention. Improving BMI, which has the largest association with cancer risk, is an especially promising target.