↓ Skip to main content

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?

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
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?
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1038/gim.2015.173
Pubmed ID
Abstract

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. 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 advance online publication 17 December 2015Genetics in Medicine (2015); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.173.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 24 32%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 37%
Unspecified 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 24 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,620,079
of 23,538,320 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#594
of 2,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,967
of 365,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,538,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 365,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.