Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 721–727 | Cite as

Underutilization of gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer in California

  • Rosemary D. Cress
  • Yingjia S. Chen
  • Cyllene R. Morris
  • Helen Chew
  • Kenneth W. Kizer
Original paper



To describe the utilization of gene expression profiling (GEP) among California breast cancer patients, identify predictors of use of GEP, and evaluate how utilization of GEP influenced treatment of early-stage breast cancer.


All women diagnosed with hormone-receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry between January 2008 and December 2010 were linked to Oncotype DX (ODX) assay results.


Overall, 26.7 % of 23,789 eligible patients underwent the assay during the study period. Women age 65 or older were much less likely than women under age 50 to be tested (15.1 vs. 41.4 %, p < 0.001). Black women were slightly less likely and Asian women were slightly more likely than non-Hispanic white women to undergo GEP with the ODX assay (22.2 and 28.9 vs. 26.9 %, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients residing in low SES census tracts had the lowest use of the test (8.9 %), with the proportion increasing with higher SES category. Women with Medicaid health insurance were less likely than other women to be tested (17.7 vs. 27.5 %, p < 0.001). Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) was associated with the ODX recurrence score, although only 63 % of patients whose recurrence scores indicated a high benefit received ACT. Of patients not tested, 15 % received ACT.


Nearly three-fourths of eligible breast cancer patients in California during the 3-year period 2008 through 2010 did not undergo GEP. As a result, it is likely that many women unnecessarily received ACT and suffered associated morbidity. In addition, some high-risk women who would have benefited most from ACT were not identified.


Breast cancer Cancer registry Gene expression profiling Genomics Chemotherapy 


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 65:5–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J, Costantino JP, Geyer CE Jr, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726–3734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haas JS, Liang SY, Hassett MJ, Shiboski S, Elkin EB, Phillips KA (2011) Gene expression profile testing for breast cancer and the use of chemotherapy, serious adverse effects, and costs of care. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130:619–626CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF, Bast RC Jr, American Society of Clinical O (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J (2007) Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 109:1011–1018CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mamounas EP, Tang G, Fisher B, Paik S, Shak S, Costantino JP, Watson D, Geyer CE Jr, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2010) Association between the 21-gene recurrence score assay and risk of locoregional recurrence in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. J Clin Oncol 28:1677–1683CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, Elias AD, Farrar WB, Forero A, Giordano SH, Goetz M, Goldstein LJ, Hudis CA, Isakoff SJ, Marcom PK, Mayer IA, McCormick B, Moran M, Patel SA, Pierce LJ, Reed EC, Salerno KE, Schwartzberg LS, Smith KL, Smith ML, Soliman H, Somlo G, Telli M, Ward JH, Shead DA, Kumar R, Invasive Breast Cancer Version 1 (2016) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 14:324–354Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W (2001) Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control 12:703–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Walker MG, Watson D, Park T, Hiller W, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Bryant J, Wolmark N (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Pan HC, Clarke M, Cutter D, Darby S, McGale P, Taylor C, Wang YC, Bergh J, Di Leo A, Albain K, Swain S, Piccart M, Pritchard K, Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G (2012) Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 379:432–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Enewold L, Geiger AM, Zujewski J, Harlan LC (2015) Oncotype DX assay and breast cancer in the United States: usage and concordance with chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151:149–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dinan MA, Mi X, Reed SD, Lyman GH, Curtis LH (2015) Association between use of the 21-gene recurrence score assay and receipt of chemotherapy among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer, 2005–2009. JAMA Oncol 1:1098–1109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen MT, Stessin A, Nagar H, D’Alfonso TM, Chen Z, Cigler T, Hayes MK, Shin SJ (2014) Impact of oncotype DX recurrence score in the management of breast cancer cases. Clin Breast Cancer 14:182–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guth AA, Fineberg S, Fei K, Franco R, Bickell NA (2013) Utilization of oncotype DX in an inner city population: race or place? Int J Breast Cancer 2013:653805CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME, Blayney DW, Edge SB, Herman JG, Hudis CA, Marcom PK, Pettinga JE, Share D, Theriault R, Wong YN, Vandergrift JL, Niland JC, Weeks JC (2012) Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:2218–2226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Griggs JJ, Hawley ST, Graff JJ, Hamilton AS, Jagsi R, Janz NK, Mujahid MS, Friese CR, Salem B, Abrahamse PH, Katz SJ (2012) Factors associated with receipt of breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy in a diverse population-based sample. J Clin Oncol 30:3058–3064CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warren JL, Butler EN, Stevens J, Lathan CS, Noone AM, Ward KC, Harlan LC (2014) Receipt of chemotherapy among Medicare patients with cancer by type of supplemental insurance. J Clin Oncol 33:312–318CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberts MC, Weinberger M, Dusetzina SB, Dinan MA, Reeder-Hayes KE, Carey LA, Troester MA, Wheeler SB (2016) Racial variation in the uptake of oncotype DX testing for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:130–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carlson JJ, Roth JA (2013) The impact of the Oncotype DX breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 141:13–22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sparano JA, Paik S (2008) Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26:721–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Potosky AL, O’Neill SC, Isaacs C, Tsai HT, Chao C, Liu C, Ekezue BF, Selvam N, Kessler LG, Zhou Y, Schwartz MD (2015) Population-based study of the effect of gene expression profiling on adjuvant chemotherapy use in breast cancer patients under the age of 65 years. Cancer 121:4062–4070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noone AM, Lund JL, Mariotto A, Cronin K, McNeel T, Deapen D, Warren JL (2014) Comparison of SEER treatment data with medicare claims. Med Care. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000073 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, Geyer CE, Jr., Dees EC, Perez EA, Olson JA, Jr., Zujewski J, Lively T, Badve SS, Saphner TJ, Wagner LI, Whelan TJ, Ellis MJ, Paik S, Wood WC, Ravdin P, Keane MM, Gomez Moreno HL, Reddy PS, Goggins TF, Mayer IA, Brufsky AM, Toppmeyer DL, Kaklamani VG, Atkins JN, Berenberg JL, Sledge GW (2015) Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 373:2005–2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary D. Cress
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yingjia S. Chen
    • 1
  • Cyllene R. Morris
    • 3
  • Helen Chew
    • 4
  • Kenneth W. Kizer
    • 3
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Public Health Sciences, School of MedicineUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Cancer Registry of Greater CaliforniaPublic Health InstituteSacramentoUSA
  3. 3.California Cancer Reporting and Epidemiologic Surveillance Program, Institute for Population Health ImprovementUniversity of California Davis Health SystemSacramentoUSA
  4. 4.Division of Hematology/OncologyUC Davis Comprehensive Cancer CenterSacramentoUSA
  5. 5.School of MedicineUniversity of California, DavisSacramentoUSA
  6. 6.Betty Irene Moore School of NursingUniversity of California, DavisSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations