| Title |
Clinical utility of gene-expression profiling in women with early breast cancer: an overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics in Medicine, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1038/gim.2014.140 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Marrone, Alison Stewart, W. David Dotson |
| Abstract |
Purpose:This overview systematically evaluates the clinical utility of using Oncotype DX and MammaPrint gene-expression profiling tests to direct treatment decisions in women with breast cancer. The findings are intended to inform an updated recommendation from the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group.Methods:Evidence reported in systematic reviews evaluating the clinical utility of Oncotype DX and MammaPrint, as well as the ability to predict treatment outcomes, change in treatment decisions, and cost-effectiveness, was qualitatively synthesized.Results:Five systematic reviews found no direct evidence of clinical utility for either test. Indirect evidence showed Oncotype DX was able to predict treatment effects of adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas no evidence of predictive value was found for MammaPrint. Both tests influenced a change in treatment recommendations in 21 to 74% of participants. The cost-effectiveness of Oncotype DX varied with the alternative compared. For MammaPrint, lack of evidence of the predictive value led to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness.Conclusion:No studies were identified that provided direct evidence that using gene-expression profiling tests to direct treatment decisions improved outcomes in women with breast cancer. Three ongoing studies may provide direct evidence for determining the clinical utility of gene-expression profiling testing.Genet Med advance online publication 04 December 2014Genetics in Medicine (2014); doi:10.1038/gim.2014.140. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 | 3 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 18% |
| Uganda | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 47% |
| Scientists | 4 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 23% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 22% |
| Unknown | 13 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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
#1,411,821
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#456
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,434
of 368,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#11
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 368,057 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.