Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care May 2016
Greater Potential Cost Savings With Biosimilar Use
Benjamin Yu, PharmD
Implementing a Hybrid Approach to Select Patients for Care Management: Variations Across Practices
Christine Vogeli, PhD; Jenna Spirt, MPH; Richard Brand, PhD; John Hsu, MD, MPH; Namita Mohta, MD; Clemens Hong, MD, MPH; Eric Weil, MD; and Timothy G. Ferris, MD, MPH
Medicaid Managed Care Penetration and Drug Utilization for Patients With Serious Mental Illness
Aaron L. Schwartz, PhD; Jacqueline Pesa, PhD, MPH; Dilesh Doshi, PharmD; John Fastenau, PhD, MPH; Seth A. Seabury, PhD; Eric T. Roberts, PhD; and David C. Grabowski, PhD
Clinical Interventions Addressing Nonmedical Health Determinants in Medicaid Managed Care
Laura M. Gottlieb, MD, MPH; Kim Garcia, MPH; Holly Wing, MA; and Rishi Manchanda, MD, MPH
Physician Perceptions of Choosing Wisely and Drivers of Overuse
Carrie H. Colla, PhD; Elizabeth A. Kinsella, BA; Nancy E. Morden, MD, MPH; David J. Meyers, MPH; Meredith B. Rosenthal, PhD; and Thomas D. Sequist, MD, MPH
Potential of Risk-Based Population Guidelines to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk in a Large Integrated Health System
Galina Inzhakova, MPH; Hui Zhou, PhD, MS; Macdonald Morris, PhD; Megan I. Early, MD, MPH; Anny H. Xiang, PhD; Steven J. Jacobsen, MD, PhD; and Stephen F. Derose, MD, MSHS
Enhanced Primary Care and Impact on Quality of Care in Massachusetts
Asaf Bitton, MD, MPH; Amy W. Baughman, MD, MPH; Sara Carlini, BA; Joel S. Weissman, PhD; and David W. Bates, MD, MSc
Currently Reading
Breast Cancer Multigene Testing Trends and Impact on Chemotherapy Use
G. Thomas Ray, MBA; Jeanne Mandelblatt, MD; Laurel A. Habel, PhD; Scott Ramsey, MD, PhD; Lawrence H. Kushi, ScD; Yan Li, MD; and Tracy A. Lieu, MD, MPH
Referring Wisely: Orthopedic Referral Guidelines at an Academic Institution
Maria E. Otto, MD; Carlin Senter, MD; Ralph Gonzales, MD, MSPH; and Nathaniel Gleason, MD

Breast Cancer Multigene Testing Trends and Impact on Chemotherapy Use

G. Thomas Ray, MBA; Jeanne Mandelblatt, MD; Laurel A. Habel, PhD; Scott Ramsey, MD, PhD; Lawrence H. Kushi, ScD; Yan Li, MD; and Tracy A. Lieu, MD, MPH
A multigene test for breast cancer recurrence risk was used in a minority of eligible patients, yet was associated with a decrease in chemotherapy use.
Overall, this study suggests that in a large integrated healthcare system, the 21-gene test is used in a minority of eligible patients, but when used, it is leading to clinically appropriate patterns of chemotherapy use. Optimizing the benefit and efficiency of this and other genomic tests for cancer patients will require additional research on the factors that drive test use and subsequent decisions about chemotherapy. 

 


Author Affiliations: Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California (GTR, LAH, LHK, TAL), Oakland, CA; Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center (JM), Washington, DC; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (SR), Seattle, WA; Department of Oncology, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center (YL), Oakland, CA.

Source of Funding: This work was funded by grant #U01CA183081 from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. This work was also supported in part by the following National Cancer Institute grants: R01 CA105274; U19 CA079689; U24 CA171524; U01 CA152958; and UC2 CA148471.

Author Disclosures: The authors report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article. All statements in this report, including its findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institutes of Health.

Authorship Information: Concept and design (GTR, JM, LAH, TAL); acquisition of data (GTR, LAH, LHK, TAL); analysis and interpretation of data (GTR, JM, LAH, LHK, TAL, SR, YL); drafting of the manuscript (GTR, JM, LAH, LHK, TAL, SR, YL); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (GTR, JM, LAH, LHK, TAL, SR, YL); statistical analysis (GTR); obtaining funding (JM, TAL).

Address correspondence to: G. Thomas Ray, MBA, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, 2000 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612. E-mail:
tom.ray@kp.org.
REFERENCES

1. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793-795. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1500523.

2. Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME, et al. Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(18):2218-2126. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.5740.

3. McVeigh TP, Hughes LM, Miller N, et al. The impact of Oncotype DX testing on breast cancer management and chemotherapy prescribing patterns in a tertiary referral centre. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(16):2763-2770. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.08.002.

4. Enewold L, Geiger AM, Zujewski J, Harlan LC. Oncotype DX assay and breast cancer in the United States: usage and concordance with chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151(1):149-156. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3366-7.

5. Roberts MC, Dusetzina SB. Use and costs for tumor gene expression profiling panels in the management of breast cancer from 2006 to 2012: implications for genomic test adoption among private payers. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(4):273-277. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2015.003624.

6. Augustovski F, Soto N, Caporale J, Gonzalez L, Gibbons L, Ciapponi A. Decision-making impact on adjuvant chemotherapy allocation in early node-negative breast cancer with a 21-gene assay: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152(3):611-625. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3483-3.

7. Gray SW, Cronin A, Bair E, Lindeman N, Viswanath V, Janeway KA. Marketing of personalized cancer care on the web: an analysis of internet websites. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(5):pii: djv030. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv030.

8. Haas JS, Phillips KA, Liang SY, et al. Genomic testing and therapies for breast cancer in clinical practice. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(5 spec no):e174-e181.

9. Ferrusi IL, Earle CC, Trudeau M, et al. Closing the personalized medicine information gap: HER2 test documentation practice. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(1):838-844.

10. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al. 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. 2010;28(11):1829-1834. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.4798.

11. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(3):R25.

12. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817-2826.

13. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(23):3726-3734.

14. Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO, et al. Invasive breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011;9(2):136-222.

15. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5287-5312.

16. Selby JV, Smith DH, Johnson ES, Raebel MA, Friedman GD, McFarland BH. Kaiser Permanente medical care program. In: Strom BL (ed). Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2005: 241-259.

17. Kwan ML, Ambrosone CB, Lee MM, et al. The Pathways Study: a prospective study of breast cancer survivorship within Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(10):1065-1076. doi: 10.1007/s10552-008-9170-5.

18. A compass for understanding and using American community survey data: what general data users need to know. US Census Bureau website. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2008/acs/ACSGeneralHandbook.pdf. Published October 2008. Accessed August 24, 2015.

19. American Community Survey [2012]. US Census Bureau website. http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. Accessed August 24, 2015.

20. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613-619.

21. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician. 1985;39(1):33-38.

22. Johnston SC. Combining ecological and individual variables to reduce confounding by indication: case study—subarachnoid hemorrhage treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(12):1236-1241.

23. Chen C, Dhanda R, Tseng WY, Forsyth M, Patt DA. Evaluating use characteristics for the Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence score and concordance with chemotherapy use in early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(4):182-187. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000638.

24. Guth AA, Fineberg S, Fei K, Franco R, Bickell NA. Utilization of Oncotype DX in an inner city population: race or place? Int J Breast Cancer. 2013;2013:653805. doi: 10.1155/2013/653805.

25. Olivotto IA, Bajdik CD, Ravdin PM, et al. Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2716-2725.

26. Spellman E, Sulayman N, Eggly S, et al. Conveying genomic recurrence risk estimates to patients with early-stage breast cancer: oncologist perspectives. Psychooncology. 2013;22(9):2110-2116. doi: 10.1002/pon.3264.

27. Lee MH, Han W, Lee JE, et al. The clinical impact of 21-gene recurrence score on treatment decisions for patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in Korea. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47(2):208-214. doi: 10.4143/crt.2013.223.

28. Carlson JJ, Roth JA. The impact of the Oncotype DX breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141(1):13-22. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2666-z.

29. Bargallo JE, Lara F, Shaw-Dulin R, et al. A study of the impact of the 21-gene breast cancer assay on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with breast cancer in a Mexican public hospital. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(2):203-207. doi: 10.1002/jso.23794.

30. Hornberger J, Chien R, Krebs K, Hochheiser L. US insurance program’s experience with a multigene assay for early-stage breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(suppl 3):e38s-e45s. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000303.

31. Hornberger J, Alvarado MD, Rebecca C, Gutierrez HR, Yu TM, Gradishar WJ. Clinical validity/utility, change in practice patterns, and economic implications of risk stratifiers to predict outcomes for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(14):1068-1079. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs261.

32. Vanderlaan BF, Broder MS, Chang EY, Oratz R, Bentley TG. Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(7):455-464.

33. Leggett LE, Lorenzetti DL, Noseworthy T, Tiwana S, Mackean G, Clement F. Experiences and attitudes toward risk of recurrence testing in women with breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(3):457-465. doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-2900-3.

34. Tzeng JP, Mayer D, Richman AR, et al. Women’s experiences with genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk. Cancer. 2010;116(8):1992-2000. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24990.

35. O’Neill SC, Brewer NT, Lillie SE, et al. Women’s interest in gene expression analysis for breast cancer recurrence risk. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(29):4628-4634.

36. Lo SS, Mumby PB, Norton J, et al. Prospective multicenter study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(10):1671-1676. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.2119. 
PDF
 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2018 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!