| Title |
The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-013-2666-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Josh J. Carlson, Joshua A. Roth |
| Abstract |
The impact of the Oncotype Dx (ODX) breast cancer assay on adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) treatment decisions has been evaluated in many previous studies. However, it can be difficult to interpret the collective findings, which were conducted in diverse settings with limited sample sizes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the results and provide insights about ODX utility. Studies, identified from PubMed, Embase, ASCO, and SABCS, were included if patients had ER+, node -, early-stage breast cancer, reported use of ODX to inform actual ACT decisions. Information was summarized and pooled according to: (1) distribution of ODX recurrence scores (RS), (2) impact of ODX on ACT recommendations, (3) impact of ODX on ACT use, and (4) proportion of patients following the treatment suggested by the ODX RS. A total of 23 studies met inclusion criteria. The distribution of RS categories was 48.8 % low, 39.0 % intermediate, and 12.2 % high (21 studies, 4,156 patients). ODX changed the clinical-pathological ACT recommendation in 33.4 % of patients (8 studies, 1,437 patients). In patients receiving ODX, receipt of ACT were: 28.2 % overall, 5.8 % low, 37.4 % intermediate, and 83.4 % high. High RS patients were significantly more likely to follow the treatment suggested by ODX versus low RS patients RR: 1.07 (1.01-1.14). The pooled results are consistent with most individual studies to date. The increased proportion of intermediate scores relative to original estimates may have implications for the clinical utility and cost impacts of testing. In addition, low versus high RS patients were significantly more likely to follow the ODX results, suggesting a tendency toward less aggressive treatment, despite a high ODX RS. Finally, there was a lack of studies on the impact of ODX on ACT use versus standard approaches, suggesting that additional studies are warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Chile | 1 | 20% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 20% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 126 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 17% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 27 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,457,137
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#822
of 4,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,327
of 199,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#7
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.