Who gets genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk?

Disparities in OncotypeDx Testing and Subsequent Chemotherapy Receipt by Geography and Socioeconomic Status

BACKGROUND

OncotypeDx is a prognostic and predictive genomic assay used in early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2- (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. It is used to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions, but not all eligible women receive testing. We aimed to assess variation in testing by demographics and geography, and to determine whether testing was associated with chemotherapy.

METHODS

For 1,615 women in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study with HR+/HER2-, Stage I-II tumors, we estimated prevalence differences (PD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for receipt of OncotypeDx genomic testing in association with and sociodemographic characteristics. We assessed associations between testing and chemotherapy receipt overall and by race. Finally, we calculated the proportion of eligible women receiving OncotypeDx by county-level rurality, census tract-level socioeconomic status, and Area Health Education Center regions.

RESULTS

38% (N = 609) of potentially eligible women were tested, with lower testing prevalences in Black (31%; PD, -11%; 95% CI, -16%-6%) and low-income women (24%; PD, -20%; 95% CI, -29% to -11%) relative to non-Black and higher income women. Urban participants were less likely to be tested than rural participants, though this association varied by region. Among women with low genomic risk tumors, tested participants were 29% less likely to receive chemotherapy than untested participants (95% CI, -40% to -17%). Racial differences in chemotherapy were restricted to untested women.

CONCLUSIONS

Both individual and area-level socioeconomics predict likelihood of OncotypeDx testing.

IMPACT

Variable adoption of OncotypeDx by socioeconomics and across geographic settings may contribute to excess chemotherapy among patients with HR+/HER2- cancers. See related In the Spotlight, p. 635.

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients' preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes.

Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Single-gene testing is associated with psycho-social challenges for cancer patients. Genomic testing may amplify these. The aim of this study was to understand patients' motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing, to enable healthcare providers to support their patients throughout the testing process and interpretation of test results.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for original peer reviewed research articles published between January 2001 and September 2018 addressing motivation for genomic cancer testing. QualSyst was used to assess quality.

RESULTS

182 studies were identified and 17 were included for review. Studies were heterogenous. Both somatic and germline testing were included, and 14 studies used hypothetical scenarios. 3249 participants were analyzed, aged 18 to 94. Most were female and white. The most common diagnoses were breast, ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer. Interest in testing was high. Motivations included ability to predict cancer risk, inform disease management, benefit families, and understand cancer. Barriers included concerns about cost, privacy/confidentiality, clinical utility, and psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns, consumers are interested in cancer genomic testing if it can provide actionable results for themselves and their families.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers must manage understanding and expectations of testing and translate genetic information into health-promoting behaviours.

Patient and physician factors associated with Oncotype DX and adjuvant chemotherapy utilization for breast cancer patients in New Hampshire, 2010-2016

BACKGROUND

Oncotype DX® (ODX) is used to assess risk of disease recurrence in hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and to guide decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy. Little is known about how physician factors impact treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to examine patient and physician factors associated with ODX testing and adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients in New Hampshire.

METHODS

We examined New Hampshire State Cancer Registry data on 5630 female breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2016. We performed unadjusted and adjusted hierarchical logistic regression to identify factors associated with a patient's receipt of ODX, being recommended and receiving chemotherapy, and refusing chemotherapy. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to examine the proportion of variance in clinical decisions explained by between-physician and between-hospital variation.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 1512 breast cancer patients received ODX. After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, we found that patients seen by a male medical oncologist were less likely to be recommended chemotherapy following ODX (OR = 0.50 (95% CI = 0.34-0.74), p < 0.01). Medical oncologists with more clinical experience (reference: less than 10 years) were more likely to recommend chemotherapy (20-29 years: OR = 4.05 (95% CI = 1.57-10.43), p < 0.01; > 29 years: OR = 4.48 (95% CI = 1.68-11.95), p < 0.01). A substantial amount of the variation in receiving chemotherapy was due to variation between physicians, particularly among low risk patients (ICC = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to patient clinicopathologic characteristics, physician gender and clinical experience were associated with chemotherapy treatment following ODX testing. The significant variation between physicians indicates the potential for interventions to reduce variation in care.

Advanced Cancer Patient Knowledge of and Attitudes towards Tumor Molecular Profiling

Limited research has indicated that despite their overwhelming interest in tumor molecular profiling (MP),1 cancer patients have poor knowledge about MP. The current study aimed to investigate demographic and psychological predictors of knowledge and perceived importance of MP in an advanced cancer patient cohort. Eligible participants had advanced solid cancers of any histological type with sufficient accessible tissue for MP and were enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST) Program. A questionnaire was completed by 1074 participants (91% response rate) after consent, prior to undergoing MP. Overall, participants had poor to moderate knowledge of MP, yet perceived MP to have high importance. Higher education, speaking English at home, and greater satisfaction with the decision to undergo MP were associated with higher knowledge scores. More negative attitudes towards uncertainty, greater self-efficacy to cope with results, and lower perceived likelihood of cancer progression were associated with greater perceived importance of MP. Less educated participants and those who do not speak English at home will need clear explanations, visual aids and ample opportunity to ask questions about MP at the time of their decision-making. Clinicians also need to consider psychological factors relevant to patients' decision to pursue MP. Given the increased awareness of and demand for cancer genomic information and the rapidly changing nature of the actionability of MP, these findings will help inform an important ongoing debate on how to facilitate ethical and informed consent and manage patient expectations about personalized treatments.

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.

Current Status and Future Opportunities in Lung Precision Medicine Research with a Focus on Biomarkers. An American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Research Statement

BACKGROUND

Thousands of biomarker tests are either available or under development for lung diseases. In many cases, adoption of these tests into clinical practice is outpacing the generation and evaluation of sufficient data to determine clinical utility and ability to improve health outcomes. There is a need for a systematically organized report that provides guidance on how to understand and evaluate use of biomarker tests for lung diseases.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse group of clinicians and researchers from the American Thoracic Society and leaders from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with expertise in various aspects of precision medicine to review the current status of biomarker tests in lung diseases. Experts summarized existing biomarker tests that are available for lung cancer, pulmonary arterial hypertension, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and other rare lung diseases. The group identified knowledge gaps that future research studies can address to efficiently translate biomarker tests into clinical practice, assess their cost-effectiveness, and ensure they apply to diverse, real-life populations.

RESULTS

We found that the status of biomarker tests in lung diseases is highly variable depending on the disease. Nevertheless, biomarker tests in lung diseases show great promise in improving clinical care. To efficiently translate biomarkers into tests used widely in clinical practice, researchers need to address specific clinical unmet needs, secure support for biomarker discovery efforts, conduct analytical and clinical validation studies, ensure tests have clinical utility, and facilitate appropriate adoption into routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made toward implementation of precision medicine for lung diseases in clinical practice in certain settings, additional studies focused on addressing specific unmet clinical needs are required to evaluate the clinical utility of biomarkers; ensure their generalizability to diverse, real-life populations; and determine their cost-effectiveness.

Shared-patient physician networks and their impact on the uptake of genomic testing in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Factors influencing the adoption of genomic testing are poorly understood, which may lead to inequitable and suboptimal treatment in cancer patients. Oncotype DX (ODX) is one of the first and most widely used genomic assays to stratify risk in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC). Physician networks have emerged as a significant and modifiable driver of emerging medical technology adoption.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between physician network connections and the use of ODX testing.

METHODS

A retrospective study of women diagnosed with BC using SEER-Medicare from 2008 to 2012 was used. Medical oncologists were "connected" if they shared two or more patients during the early-adoption period (2008-2009). Parallel physician- and patient-level analyses employed logistic mixed models to determine the impact of being "connected" to an early-adopting oncologist on ODX use in 2011-2012.

RESULTS

24,463 women met study criteria; 12,874 were diagnosed with BC in the early-adoption time period. 2129 medical oncologists treated these patients from 2008 to 2009. Medical oncologists had a median number of peer connections of 4 (IQR: 2-7). Peer connection to an early-adopting provider in 2008-2009 was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in providers' adopting ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.6) and a 1.5-fold increase in their patients receiving ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.0) in 2010-2012.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer connectedness to an early-adopting physician predicts ODX adoption in both physician-level and patient-level analyses. Provider networks may provide a potent and modifiable means to modulate the diffusion of emerging medical technologies. Efforts to increase testing, where appropriate, may benefit from peer-to-peer-based connection strategies.

Prognostic indices predictive of short-term disease-free survival of breast carcinoma patients receiving primary surgical treatment in Sri Lanka

Background

Breast carcinoma (BCa) is the commonest malignancy among women worldwide and in Sri Lanka. Several prognostic indices are described for BCa.

Aims

To assess clinicopathological features and prognostic indices derived from routine clinical, histopathological and immunohistochemical (IHC) data, in a cohort of patients undergoing primary surgery for BCa and to determine their prognostic impact on short-term disease free survival.

Setting and Design

: This is a bidirectional cohort study of 208 women undergoing primary surgery for BCa at the National Hospital of Sri Lanka, from 2012-2014, excluding post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy cases.

Material and Methods

Clinical details, tumor size and nodal status were obtained from histopathology reports. Histopathology and estrogen/progesterone receptor and HER2 status were reviewed. Molecular subtype based on IHC was determined. Nodal ratio (number of positive nodes/total number retrieved) and Nottingham prognostic index were calculated. Follow up information was obtained by patient interviews and record review.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox regression using SPSS19.0.

Results

Mean follow-up duration was 27.16 months (0.5-52 months, s = 9.35 months). 174 (82.9%) remained disease free with 19 (9%) deaths. Thirteen (6.2%) survived with metastasis and 4 (1.9%) with recurrences. On univariate Cox regression, tumor, nodal and TNM stages, nodal ratio and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were predictive of disease free survival (DFS) (P = 0.001, P = 0.021, P = 0.022, P = 0.002, P = 0.018). On multivariate analysis TNM stage and LVI were predictive of DFS.

Conclusion

TNM stage and LVI were the most important predictors of short-term disease free survival in this study population, confirming that early detection of BCa at a lower stage has a significant impact on short-term outcomes.

The impact and indications for Oncotype DX on adjuvant treatment recommendations when third-party funding is unavailable

OBJECTIVES

Industry-supported decision impact studies demonstrate that Oncotype Dx (ODX) changes treatment recommendations (TR) in 24-40% of hormone receptor+/HER2- patients. ODX is not reimbursed by third-party payers in Australia, potentially resulting in more selective use. We sought to evaluate the impact of self-funded ODX on TRs.

METHODS

Data collected included demographics, tumor characteristics, indication for ODX and pre- and post-recurrence score (RS) TR. Primary endpoint was frequency of TR change and associations with TR change were sought.

RESULTS

Eighteen physicians contributed 382 patients (median age 54). A total of 232 (61%) of tumors were T1 and were grade 1, 2 and 3 in 49 (13%), 252 (66%) and 79 (21%). A total of 257 (67%) were node negative. Assay indications were: confirm need for chemotherapy (CT) (36%), confirm omission of CT (40%) and genuine equipoise (24%). RS was low (≤17) in 55%, intermediate (18-31) in 36% and high (≥32) in 9%. Thirty-eight percent of patients had TR change post-ODX. Sixty-five percent of patients recommended CT pre-ODX changed to hormone therapy alone (HT)-more likely if lower grade and if ER and/or PR > 10%. Fourteen percent of patients with pre-ODX TR for HT added CT-more likely if ER and/or PR ≤10% and if Ki67 > 15% Overall, TR for CT decreased from 47% to 24%.

CONCLUSION

Patient-funded ODX changed TRs in 38% of patients, de-escalating 65% from CT to HT and adding CT to 14% of those recommended HT. These changes were greater than an industry-funded study suggesting that physicians can identify situations where the assay may influence decisions.

Association between physician characteristics and the use of 21-gene recurrence score genomic testing among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer, 2008-2011

PURPOSE

We sought to determine whether physician-level characteristics were associated with 21-gene recurrence score (RS) genomic testing to evaluate recurrence risk and benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program-Medicare data linked with the American Medical Association physician master file. The main outcome was receipt of genomic testing within 1 year of diagnosis as a function of physician-level factors.

RESULTS

A total of 24,463 patients met the study criteria; they received care from 3172 surgeons and 2475 medical oncologists. Of 4124 tests ordered, 70% were ordered by a medical oncologist and 16% by a surgeon. In multivariable regression models, multiple variables were associated with receipt of testing, including having a medical oncologist (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; 95% CI 2.00-3.82), a surgeon specializing in surgical oncology (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.09-1.31), and a female medical oncologist (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02-1.20). Having a medical oncologist with 5 or more years in practice was associated with lower odds of testing (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76-0.92). Surgical procedures performed at academic centers were associated with higher odds of testing (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02-1.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most RS testing was ordered by medical oncologists, physicians in other specialties ordered roughly one-third of the tests. Physician characteristics, including gender and time in practice, were associated with receiving testing, creating opportunities for targeting interventions to help patients receive optimal care.

Racial Differences in 21-Gene Recurrence Scores Among Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) breast cancer assay is clinically used to quantify risk of 10-year distant recurrence by category (low, < 18; intermediate, 18 to 30; high, ≥ 31) for treatment management among women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer. Although non-Hispanic black (NHB) women have worse prognosis compared with non-Hispanic white (NHW) women, the equivalency of 21-gene RS across racial groups remains unknown. Patients and Methods Using the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System, we identified women who were diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, lymph node-negative invasive breast cancer between 2010 and 2014. Multinomial logistic regression was used to quantify racial differences in 21-gene RS category. Results We identified 2,216 women (1,824 NHW and 392 NHB) with invasive breast cancer who met clinical guidelines for and underwent 21-gene RS testing. The mean RS was significantly higher in NHBs compared with NHWs (19.3 v 17.0, respectively; P = .0003), where NHBs were more likely to present with high-risk tumors compared with NHWs (14.8% v 8.3%, respectively; P = .0004). These differences were limited to patients younger than 65 years at diagnosis, among whom NHBs had significantly higher RS compared with NHWs (20 to 49 years: 23.6 v 17.3, respectively; P < .001 and 50 to 64 years: 19.6 v 17.4, respectively; P = .023). NHBs remained more likely to have high-risk tumors compared with NHWs after adjusting for age, clinical stage, tumor grade, and histology (odds ratio [OR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.59). Conclusion NHBs who met clinical criteria for 21-gene RS testing had tumors with higher estimated risks of distant recurrence compared with NHWs. Further study is needed to elucidate whether differences in recurrence are observed for these women, which would have clinical implications for 21-gene RS calibration and treatment recommendations in NHB patients.

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

Influence of provider factors and race on uptake of breast cancer gene expression profiling

BACKGROUND

Gene expression profiling (GEP) has been rapidly adopted for early breast cancer and can aid in chemotherapy decision making. Study results regarding racial disparities in testing are conflicting, and may reflect different care settings. To the authors' knowledge, data regarding the influence of provider factors on testing are scarce.

METHODS

The authors used a statewide, multipayer, insurance claims database linked to cancer registry records to examine the impact of race and provider characteristics on GEP uptake in a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2012. Incidence proportion models were used to examine the adjusted likelihood of testing. Models were stratified by lymph node status (N0 vs N1).

RESULTS

Among 11,958 eligible patients, 23% of black and 26% of non-Hispanic white patients received GEP. Among patients with N0 disease, black individuals were 16% less likely to receive testing after adjustment for clinical factors and the provider's specialty and volume of patients with breast cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.93). Adjustment for provider characteristics did not attenuate the effect of race on testing. Patients of middle-volume providers were more likely to be tested compared with those with either high-volume or low-volume providers, whereas patients seeing a medical oncologist were more likely to be tested compared with those whose only providers were from surgical specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider volume and specialty were found to be significant predictors of GEP use, but did not explain racial disparities in testing. Further research concerning the key contributors to lagging test use among black women is needed to optimize the equitable use of GEPs and support personalized treatment decision making for all patients. Cancer 2018;124:1743-51. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Low utility of Oncotype DX® in the clinic

Precision medicine tools are currently making their way into the clinic and being utilized to diagnose, prognose, and individualize cancer care. The multi-gene expression-based assay, Oncotype DX® (ODX), is a genomic tumor profiling tool that determines the expression of 21 tumor- associated genes; it helps determine the risk for distant recurrence and whether chemotherapy is an appropriate course of treatment in patients with early stage, estrogen receptor (ER) positive, HER2 negative, and lymph node negative (or 1-3 positive lymph nodes) invasive BCa. The aim of this study was to determine the overall utilization and uptake of the ODX genomic test in a cross-sectional analysis of the Virginia Tumor registry, compare utilization in African Americans (AAs) and Caucasian Americans (CAs), and determine the profile of patients referred for testing. Caucasian (89.7%) patients made up the majority of the ODX testers compared to AAs (10.3%) (P < 0.0001). Those who received ODX testing were less likely to have higher grade and higher stage tumors, and were less likely to be ER negative (RR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.01-0.31), progesterone receptor (PR) negative (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.27-0.45), HER2 amplified (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.43), or triple negative (RR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.14-0.33). Of the patients that were eligible (n = 3924), 10.5% (n = 412) received ODX testing. Specifically, 11.7% of the Caucasian patients and 5.1% of AAs patients received ODX testing (P < 0.001). Our analysis confirmed that the utilization of ODX was low and that AAs were much less likely to receive ODX testing.

ONCOLOGISTS' BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS FOR ONCOTYPE DX USE: QUALITATIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Oncotype DX (ODX), a tumor gene profiling test, has been incorporated into clinical guidelines to aid in adjuvant chemotherapy decision making for early-stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients. Despite United States (U.S.) guidelines, less than half of eligible women receive testing. Reasons for low usage are unclear: Our objective was to better understand U.S. oncologists' ODX uptake and how they use ODX during adjuvant chemotherapy decision making.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, ~30-minute phone interviews with medical and surgical oncologists in one U.S. State using purposive sampling. Oncologists were included if they saw greater than or equal to five breast cancer patients per week. Recruitment ended upon thematic saturation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and double-coded using template analysis.

RESULTS

During analysis, themes emerged across three domains. First, organizational factors (i.e., departmental structure, ODX marketing, and medical/insurance guidelines) influenced ease of ODX use. Second, oncologists referenced the influence of interpersonal factors (e.g., normative beliefs and peer use of ODX) over their own practices and recommendations. Third, intrapersonal factors (e.g., oncologist attitudes, perceived barriers, and research gaps) were discussed: although oncologists largely held positive attitudes about ODX, they reported challenges with interpreting intermediate scores for treatment decisions and explaining test results to patients. Finally, oncologists identified several research gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

As more tumor gene profiling tests are incorporated into cancer care for treatment decision making, it is important to understand their use in clinical practice. This study identified multi-level factors that influence ODX uptake into clinical practice, providing insights into facilitators and modifiable barriers that can be leveraged for improving ODX uptake to aid treatment decision making.

Factors Associated with the Use of Gene Expression Profiles in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients: A Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer guidelines suggest the use of gene expression profiles (GEPs) in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients in whom controversy exists regarding adjuvant chemotherapy benefit based on traditional prognostic factors alone. We evaluated the current use of GEPs in these patients in the Netherlands.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Primary breast cancer patients treated between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 and eligible for GEP use according to the Dutch national breast cancer guideline were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry: ER+ patients <70 years with grade 1 tumors >2 cm or grade 2 tumors 1-2 cm without overt lymph node metastases (pN0-Nmi). Mixed-effect logistic regression analysis was performed to associate characteristics of patients, tumors and hospitals with GEP use.

RESULTS

GEPs were increasingly deployed: 12% of eligible patients received a GEP in 2011 versus 46% in 2014. Lobular versus ductal morphology (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.72), pN1mi status (versus pN0, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40-0.68), and tumor size (>3 cm vs. >2 cm, OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.88) were inversely associated with GEP use. High socioeconomic status (SES) (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06-1.64) and younger age (OR 0.96/year increasing age, 95% CI 0.95-0.96) were positively associated with GEP use. GEP use per hospital did vary, but no predefined institutional factors remained independently associated with GEP use.

CONCLUSION

GEP use increased over time and was influenced by patient- and tumor-associated factors as well as by SES.

Adoption of Gene Expression Profiling for Breast Cancer in US Oncology Practice for Women Younger Than 65 Years

BACKGROUND

A number of practice guidelines incorporate the use of gene expression profiling (GEP) tests for early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast tumors. Few studies describe factors associated with GEP testing in US oncology practice. We assessed the relationship between clinical, demographic, and group-level socioeconomic variables and test use in women younger than 65 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 5 state cancer registries were linked with insurance claims data and GEP test results. We assessed rates of testing and variables associated with test use in an incident cohort of 9,444 commercially insured women younger than 65 years, newly diagnosed with stage I or II hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2006 through 2012.

RESULTS

Rates of testing for women with N0 disease increased from 20.4% in 2006 to 35.2% in 2011. Variables associated with higher rates of testing, beyond clinical factors such as nodal status (P<.001), included being diagnosed from 2008 through 2012 versus 2006 through 2007 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.47-1.90), having preexisting comorbidities (adjusted OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.59), and higher out-of-pocket pharmacy costs (adjusted OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.40-1.97). Women younger than 50 years were more likely to be tested if they had stage I versus stage II disease (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In an insured population of women younger than 65 years, GEP testing increased after its inclusion in clinical practice guidelines and mounting evidence. Additional research is needed to better understand oncologists' decision not to order GEP testing for their patients who are otherwise eligible.

Implementation of the 21-gene recurrence score test in the United States in 2011

PURPOSE

We examined hospital use of the 21-gene breast cancer test in the United States. We report state-level differences in utilization and propose a model for predicting implementation of guideline-recommended genomic testing.

METHODS

Genomic Health provided test orders for calendar year 2011.We summarized utilization at the hospital and state levels. Using logistic regression, we analyzed the association between the likelihood to order the test and the hospital's institutional and regional characteristics.

RESULTS

In 2011, 45% of 4,712 acute-care hospitals ordered the test, which suggests that 25% of newly diagnosed invasive female breast cancer cases were tested. Significant predictors of testing included participation in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical research cooperative groups (odds ratio (OR) 3.73; 95% confidence interval, 2.96-4.70), advanced imaging (OR, 2.19; CI, 1.78-2.68), high-complexity laboratory (OR, 2.15; CI, 1.24-3.70), affiliation with a medical school (OR, 1.57; CI, 1.31-1.88), and reconstructive surgery (OR, 1.23; CI, 1.01-1.50). Significant regional predictors included metropolitan county (OR, 3.77; CI, 2.83-5.03), above-mean income (OR, 1.37; CI, 1.11-1.69), and education (OR, 1.26; CI, 1.03-1.54). Negative predictors included designation as a critical-access hospital (OR, 0.10; CI, 0.07-0.14) and distance from an NCI cancer center (OR, 0.998; CI, 0.997-0.999), with a 15% decrease in likelihood for every 100 miles.

CONCLUSION

Despite considerable market penetration of the test, there are significant regional and site-of-care differences in implementation, particularly in rural states.Genet Med 18 10, 982-990.

Racial Variation in the Uptake of Oncotype DX Testing for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Oncotype DX (ODX) is a tumor gene-profiling test that aids in adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making. ODX has the potential to improve quality of care; however, if not equally accessible across racial groups, disparities in cancer care quality may persist or worsen. We examined racial disparities in ODX testing uptake.

METHODS

We used data from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, phase III, a longitudinal, population-based study of 2,998 North Carolina women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer between 2008 and 2014. Our primary analysis used modified Poisson regression to determine the association between race and whether ODX testing was ordered among two strata: node-negative and node-positive breast cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 1,468 women with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative, stage I or II breast cancer met inclusion criteria. Black patients had higher-grade and larger tumors, more comorbidities, younger age at diagnosis, and lower socioeconomic status than non-black women. Overall, 42% of women had ODX test results in their pathology reports. Compared with those who did not receive ODX testing, women who received ODX testing tended to be younger and have medium tumor size and grade. Our regression analyses indicated no racial disparities in ODX uptake among node-negative patients. However, racial differences were detected among node-positive patients, with black patients being 46% less likely to receive ODX testing than non-black women (adjusted relative risk, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P = .006).

CONCLUSION

We did not find racial disparities in ODX testing for node-negative patients for whom ODX testing is guideline recommended and widely covered by insurers. However, our findings suggest that a newer, non-guideline-concordant application of ODX testing for node-positive breast cancer was accessed less by black women than by non-black women, reflecting more guideline concordant care among black women.

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

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.

Patterns of 21-gene assay testing and chemotherapy use in black and white breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

In women with early stage, hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay quantifies recurrence risk and predicts chemotherapy responsiveness. Recent data suggest that not all women with early-stage, HR(+) disease receive this testing. We examined sociodemographic, clinical, and attitudinal factors associated with RS testing receipt and the RS testing effect on chemotherapy use in black and white patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with newly diagnosed invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer were recruited and interviewed to collect sociocultural and health care process data; clinical data were collected from charts. Of the sample (n = 359), 270 had HR(+) disease. Primary analysis focused on those with HR(+) node-negative disease (n = 143); secondary analyses included node-positive women. Logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with receipt of RS testing and chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Among women eligible for the 21-gene assay, 62 patients [43%] received RS testing. In multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio, 1.04 per 1 year increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.08) was associated with RS testing after adjustment for covariates. Chemotherapy use was 23%. In multivariable analysis, positive attitudes about chemotherapy and greater risk of recurrence were associated with chemotherapy use (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Patterns of genomic testing might vary according to age. Efforts to understand factors associated with low testing rates will be important.

Classification of patients with breast cancer according to Nottingham prognostic index highlights significant differences in immunohistochemical marker expression

BACKGROUND

Prognosis and treatment of patients with breast carcinoma of no special type (NST) is dependent on a few established parameters, such as tumor size, histological grade, lymph node stage, expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2/neu, and proliferation index. The original Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) employs a three-tiered classification system that stratifies patients with breast cancer into good, moderate, and poor prognostic groups. The aim of our study was to use robust immunohistochemical methodology for determination of ER, PR, HER-2/neu, Ki-67, p53, and Bcl-2, and to observe differences in the expression of these markers when patients are stratified according to the original, three-tiered Nottingham Prognostic Index.

METHODS

Paraffin blocks from 120 patients diagnosed with breast carcinoma, NST, were retrieved from our archive. Cases included in the study were female patients previously treated with modified radical mastectomy and axillary dissection.

RESULTS

Our study demonstrates that expression of markers of good prognosis, such as ER, PR, and Bcl-2, is seen with higher frequency in good and moderate NPI groups. In contrast, overexpression of HER-2/neu, a marker of adverse prognosis, is more frequent in moderate and poor NPI groups. High proliferation index, as measured by Ki-67, is seen in moderate and poor NPI groups, whereas low proliferation index is seen in good NPI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm that the original, three-tiered NPI statistically correlates with the expression of prognostic immunohistochemical markers in breast carcinoma NST.