Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2020

Open Access 01-07-2020 | Breast Cancer | Clinical trial

Patients’ perceptions of 70-gene signature testing: commonly changing the initial inclination to undergo or forego chemotherapy and reducing decisional conflict

Authors: Julia E. C. van Steenhoven, Bianca M. den Dekker, Anne Kuijer, Paul J. van Diest, Peter Nieboer, Johanna M. Zuetenhorst, Alex L. Th. Imholz, Sabine Siesling, Thijs van Dalen

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Little is known about the impact of 70-gene signature (70-GS) use on patients’ chemotherapy decision-making. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of 70-GS use on patients’ decisions to undergo chemotherapy. The perceived decision conflict during decision-making was a secondary objective of the study.

Methods

Patients operated for estrogen receptor positive early breast cancer were asked to fill out a questionnaire probing their inclination to undergo chemotherapy before deployment of the 70-GS test. After disclosure of the 70-GS result patients were asked about their decision regarding chemotherapy. Patients’ decisional conflict was measured using the 16-item decisional conflict scale (DCS); scores < 25 are associated with a persuaded decision while a score > 37.5 implies that one feels unsure about a choice.

Results

Between January 1th 2017 and December 31th 2018, 106 patients completed both questionnaires. Before deployment of the 70-GS, 58% of patients (n = 62) formulated a clear treatment preference, of whom 21 patients (34%) changed their opinion on treatment with chemotherapy following the 70-GS. The final decision regarding chemotherapy was in line with the 70-GS result in 90% of patients. The percentage of patients who felt unsure about their preference to be treated with chemotherapy decreased from 42 to 5% after disclosure of the 70-GS. The mean total DCS significantly decreased from pre-test to post-test from 35 to 23, irrespective of the risk estimate (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Deployment of the 70-GS changed patients’ inclination to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy in one third of patients and decreased patients’ decisional conflict.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet (London, England) 365(9472):1687–1717CrossRef Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet (London, England) 365(9472):1687–1717CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Dicks E et al (2012) PREDICT plus: development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast cancer that includes HER2. Br J Cancer 107:800–807CrossRef Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Dicks E et al (2012) PREDICT plus: development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast cancer that includes HER2. Br J Cancer 107:800–807CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, Mercer MB, Hewlett J, Gerson N, Parker HL (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(4):980–991CrossRef Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, Mercer MB, Hewlett J, Gerson N, Parker HL (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(4):980–991CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Van Steenhoven JEC, Kuijer A, Schreuder K et al (2019) The changing role of gene-expression profiling in the era of de-escalating adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 26(11):3495–3501CrossRef Van Steenhoven JEC, Kuijer A, Schreuder K et al (2019) The changing role of gene-expression profiling in the era of de-escalating adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 26(11):3495–3501CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kurian AW, Bondarenko I, Jagsi R et al (2018) Recent trends in chemotherapy use and oncologists’ treatment recommendations for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 110(5):493–500CrossRef Kurian AW, Bondarenko I, Jagsi R et al (2018) Recent trends in chemotherapy use and oncologists’ treatment recommendations for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 110(5):493–500CrossRef
6.
go back to reference van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Van’t Veer LJ et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Eng J Med 347:1999–2009CrossRef van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Van’t Veer LJ et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Eng J Med 347:1999–2009CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mook S, Van’t Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ et al (2007) Individualization of therapy using Mammaprint: from development to the MINDACT trial. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 4:147–155PubMed Mook S, Van’t Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ et al (2007) Individualization of therapy using Mammaprint: from development to the MINDACT trial. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 4:147–155PubMed
8.
go back to reference Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptorpositive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726–3734CrossRef Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptorpositive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726–3734CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Cardoso F, Van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J et al (2016) 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 375:717–729CrossRef Cardoso F, Van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J et al (2016) 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 375:717–729CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF et al (2015) Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 373:2005–2014CrossRef Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF et al (2015) Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 373:2005–2014CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Della F et al (2018) Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 379:111–121CrossRef Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Della F et al (2018) Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 379:111–121CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de gezondheidszorg CBO VvIK. Risicoprofilering. Richtlijn mammacarcinoom. (2017) Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de gezondheidszorg CBO VvIK. Risicoprofilering. Richtlijn mammacarcinoom. (2017)
13.
go back to reference Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winter PE et al (2017) De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen international expert consensus conference on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2017. Ann Oncol 28(8):1700–1712CrossRef Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winter PE et al (2017) De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen international expert consensus conference on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2017. Ann Oncol 28(8):1700–1712CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kuijer A, Straver M, den Dekker B et al (2017) Impact of 70-gene signature use on adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in patients with estrogen receptor–positive early breast cancer: results of a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 35(24):2814–2819CrossRef Kuijer A, Straver M, den Dekker B et al (2017) Impact of 70-gene signature use on adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in patients with estrogen receptor–positive early breast cancer: results of a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 35(24):2814–2819CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Exner R, Bago-Horvath Z, Bartsch R et al (2014) The multigene signature MammaPrint impacts on multidisciplinary team decisions in ER+ HER2- early breast cancer. Br J Cancer 111:837–842CrossRef Exner R, Bago-Horvath Z, Bartsch R et al (2014) The multigene signature MammaPrint impacts on multidisciplinary team decisions in ER+ HER2- early breast cancer. Br J Cancer 111:837–842CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Cusumano PG, Generali D, Ciruelos E et al (2014) European inter-institutional impact study of MammaPrint. Breast 23:423–428CrossRef Cusumano PG, Generali D, Ciruelos E et al (2014) European inter-institutional impact study of MammaPrint. Breast 23:423–428CrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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 141:13–22CrossRef 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 141:13–22CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wuerstlein R, Sotlar K, Gluz O et al (2016) The West German Study Group breast cancer intrinsic subtype study: a prospective multicenter decision impact study utilizing the Prosigna assay for adjuvant treatment decision-making in estrogenreceptor- positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 32:1217–1224CrossRef Wuerstlein R, Sotlar K, Gluz O et al (2016) The West German Study Group breast cancer intrinsic subtype study: a prospective multicenter decision impact study utilizing the Prosigna assay for adjuvant treatment decision-making in estrogenreceptor- positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 32:1217–1224CrossRef
19.
go back to reference O’Connor A (1995) Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 15:25–30CrossRef O’Connor A (1995) Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 15:25–30CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Levine MN, Julian JA, Bedard PL et al (2016) Prospective evaluation of the 21-gene recurrence score assay for breast cancer decision-making in Ontario. J Clin Oncol 34:1065–1071CrossRef Levine MN, Julian JA, Bedard PL et al (2016) Prospective evaluation of the 21-gene recurrence score assay for breast cancer decision-making in Ontario. J Clin Oncol 34:1065–1071CrossRef
22.
go back to reference MacDonald KV, Bombard Y, Deal K, Trudeau M, Leighl N, Marshall DA (2016) The influence of gene expression profiling on decisional conflict in decision making for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 61:85–93CrossRef MacDonald KV, Bombard Y, Deal K, Trudeau M, Leighl N, Marshall DA (2016) The influence of gene expression profiling on decisional conflict in decision making for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 61:85–93CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Lo S, Mumby PB, Norton J, Rychlik K et al (2010) Prospective multicentre study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J Clin Oncol 28(10):1671–1676CrossRef Lo S, Mumby PB, Norton J, Rychlik K et al (2010) Prospective multicentre study of the impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay on medical oncologist and patient adjuvant breast cancer treatment selection. J Clin Oncol 28(10):1671–1676CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Kuchel A, Robinson T, Comins C et al (2016) The impact of the 21-gene assay on adjuvant treatment decisions in oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer: a prospective study. Br J Cancer 114(7):731–736CrossRef Kuchel A, Robinson T, Comins C et al (2016) The impact of the 21-gene assay on adjuvant treatment decisions in oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer: a prospective study. Br J Cancer 114(7):731–736CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Fallowfield L, Matthews L, May S, Jenkins V, Bloomfield D (2018) Enhancing decision-making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer following EndoPredict testing. Psycho-Oncol 27:1264–1269CrossRef Fallowfield L, Matthews L, May S, Jenkins V, Bloomfield D (2018) Enhancing decision-making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer following EndoPredict testing. Psycho-Oncol 27:1264–1269CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Marshall DA, Deal K, Bombard Y, Leighl NB, MacDonald KV, Trudeau M (2016) How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene-expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open 6:e010981CrossRef Marshall DA, Deal K, Bombard Y, Leighl NB, MacDonald KV, Trudeau M (2016) How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene-expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open 6:e010981CrossRef
27.
go back to reference DeFrank JT, Carey LA, Brewer NT (2013) Understandig how breast cancer patients use risk information from genomic tests. J Behav Med 36:567–573CrossRef DeFrank JT, Carey LA, Brewer NT (2013) Understandig how breast cancer patients use risk information from genomic tests. J Behav Med 36:567–573CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Martin M, Gonzalez-Rivera M, Morales S et al (2015) Prospective study of the impact of Prosigna assay on adjuvant clinical decision-making in unselected patients with estrogen receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor negative, node negative early-stage breast cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 6:1129–1137CrossRef Martin M, Gonzalez-Rivera M, Morales S et al (2015) Prospective study of the impact of Prosigna assay on adjuvant clinical decision-making in unselected patients with estrogen receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor negative, node negative early-stage breast cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 6:1129–1137CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Bombard Y, Rozmovits L, Trudeau ME, Leighl NB, Deal K, Marshall DA (2014) Patients’ perceptions of gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment decisions. Curr Oncol 21(2):e203–e211CrossRef Bombard Y, Rozmovits L, Trudeau ME, Leighl NB, Deal K, Marshall DA (2014) Patients’ perceptions of gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment decisions. Curr Oncol 21(2):e203–e211CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Bombard Y, Rozmovits L, Trudeau ME, Leighl N, Deal K, Marshall D (2015) The value of personalizing medicine: medical oncologists’ view on gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment. Oncologist 20(4):351–356CrossRef Bombard Y, Rozmovits L, Trudeau ME, Leighl N, Deal K, Marshall D (2015) The value of personalizing medicine: medical oncologists’ view on gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment. Oncologist 20(4):351–356CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patients’ perceptions of 70-gene signature testing: commonly changing the initial inclination to undergo or forego chemotherapy and reducing decisional conflict
Authors
Julia E. C. van Steenhoven
Bianca M. den Dekker
Anne Kuijer
Paul J. van Diest
Peter Nieboer
Johanna M. Zuetenhorst
Alex L. Th. Imholz
Sabine Siesling
Thijs van Dalen
Publication date
01-07-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05683-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2020 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine