OncotypeDX DCIS test use and clinical utility: A SEER population-based study Yao Yuan, PhD, MPH, Alison Van Dyke, MD, PhD, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH & Valentina.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oncotype DX® Breast Cancer Assay Clinical Data Review
Advertisements

The Present and Future of Genomics in DCIS
Laura J. Van ‘t Veer Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center University of California, San Francisco Biology of disease Who is at risk for what.
Quality Cancer Data The Vital Role of Cancer Registrars in the Fight against Cancer Saves Lives.
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Incidence, Survival and Treatment Linda C. Harlan, PhD, MPH National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and.
The influence of Breast Cancer Pay for Performance Initiatives on breast cancer survival and performance measures: a pilot study in Taiwan Raymond NC Kuo,
Driving the Transition to Individualized Cancer Treatment by Addressing Critical Questions 1 Do I need surgery? chemotherapy? radiation? INVASIVE BREAST.
Dilemma in management of DCIS
Factors Associated with Bilateral vs. Unilateral Mastectomy in a Diverse, Population-based Sample of Breast Cancer Patients Sarah T. Hawley, PhD, MPH University.
Tang G et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S4-9.
Ethnic Disparities in Early Breast Cancer Management among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Rebecca P. Gelber, MD, MPH Department of Medicine, University.
The 70 gene Mammaprint ™ signature: a comparison with traditional clinico-pathological parameters. Patrizia Querzoli 1, Massimo Pedriali 1, Gardenia Munerato.
Putting the Puzzle Together: Breast Collaborative Staging Melissa Riddle, RHIT, CTR October 6, 2012.
Sgroi DC et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-9.
Metabolic Syndrome and Recurrence within the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Risk Categories in Lymph Node Negative Breast Cancer Lakhani A et al. Proc.
A Quantitative Multi-Gene RT-PCR Assay for Prediction of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer (CC): Selection of the Genes in 4 Large Studies and Results.
Genomic Health, Inc. Yuko Soneoka, Ph.D., J.D. Senior Corporate Counsel, IP Director of Intellectual Property January 31, 2013.
A Glimpse of the Science Behind the American Cancer Society Access to Care Campaign Impact of Being Uninsured or Underinsured on Individuals with Cancer.
Dubsky P et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S4-3.
Data Sources-Cancer Betsy A. Kohler, MPH, CTR Director, Cancer Epidemiology Services New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services.
Effect of 21-Gene Reverse- Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay on Treatment Recommendations in Patients with Lymph Node-Positive and Estrogen.
Prognostic Value of Genomic Analysis After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Mayer EL et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract P
Use of Oncotype Dx® Testing Breast SSG meeting 10 th July 2015 Dr Rebecca Bowen.
Adjuvant Radiation is Not Associated with Improved Survival in Patients with Positive Margins Following Lobectomy for Stage I & II Non-Small Cell Lung.
The Inflammatory Breast Cancer Cancer Registry Paul H. Levine, M.D. Paul H. Levine, M.D. The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health.
Treatment Patterns in the Management of Prostate Cancer: Lessons Learned from the Florida Cancer Data System Vonetta L. Williams, PhD, MPH, CTR June 23,
Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology
S1207: Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Use of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy +/- One Year of Everolimus in Patients.
Increase in the Use of Double Mastectomies for the Treatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer in California Cyllene R. Morris, DVM, PhD California Cancer Registry.
Tumor Marker Phenotype Concordance in Second Primary Breast Cancer Monica Brown, MPH, PhD California Cancer Registry Mary Paré, RN, BS Sutter Cancer Center,
Printing: This poster is 48” wide by 36” high. It’s designed to be printed on a large-format printer. Customizing the Content: The placeholders in this.
Linking Electronic Health Records Across Institutions to Understand Why Women Seek Care at Multiple Sites for Breast Cancer Caroline A. Thompson, PhD,
BREAST CANCER BY STAGE OF DISEASE AT DIAGNOSIS, CENTRAL OKLAHOMA Arthur Owora, MPH; Aaron Wendelboe, PhD; David Thompson, PhD; Janis Campbell, PhD The.
Mamounas EP et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-10.
What does the data tell us? Colorectal CANCER IN NEVADA
Advances in Personalized Medicine in Oncology: A Refresher for the Practicing Radiation Therapist Sophia Lamey 
Quality of Electronic Emergency Department Data: How Good Are They?
Cervical cancer among Asian subgroups in California,
NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER
Age and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer in an Urban Population Joanne K. Fagan PhD, Denise Fyffe, PhD, Nadine Jenkins, CTR,
Ari Brooks, MD Cancer Surgeon, Big Data End User
Prognostic significance of tumor subtypes in male breast cancer:
COMPARISON OF RISK OF MALIGNANCY INDICES AND ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT NEOPLASIAS IN THE ADNEXA (ADNEX) MODEL AS PREOPERATIVE MALİGNANCY EVALUATION METHODS.
Theresa Hastert, Ph.D. WHI Cancer SIG Call September 19th, 2016
Population-Based Cancer Registries in the United States:
Surveillance Research Program
Surgical Management of the Breast in Breast Cancer
Prognostic and Predictive Value of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay in Postmenopausal Women with Node-Positive, Estrogen- Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.
Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions for African American and White Men: Prostate Cancer Follow Back Study Keith Elder, MPA,MPH, PhD.
#BlackHealthMatters: Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes for Black Women
But how to treat those with positive SLNB? Results and Discussion
Rossi A et al. Proc ASCO 2011;Abstract 8008.
Shidan Wang, BS, Lin Yang, MD, Bo Ci, BS, Matthew Maclean, BS, David E
Effect of Obesity on Prognosis after Early Breast Cancer
Physical Activity and Endometrial Cancer Survival
Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. doi: /nrclinonc
Published online September 20, 2017 by JAMA Surgery
HISTOLOGY-SPECIFIC NOMOGRAM FOR PATIENTS AFFECTED BY PRIMARY RSTS
GOCS GRUPO ONCOLÓGICO COOPERATIVO DEL SUR
Louisiana’s Hospital Follow-up Exchange: A Decade of Partnership
Do Latinas who live in ethnic enclaves have better or worse survival?
NAACCR/IACR Combined Annual Conference 2019
2019 NAACCR Annual Conference
NAACCR/IACR Annual Conference, June 2019
Arti Parikh-Patel, PhD MPH Cyllene Morris, DVM MPVM
Colorectal cancer survival disparities in California
Multigene Genomic Testing (ONCOTYPE DX)
Nadia Howlader, PhD National Cancer Institute
Text Mining for Data Quality Analysis of Melanoma Tumor Depth
Figure 1 Gene-expression quantification methods
Presentation transcript:

OncotypeDX DCIS test use and clinical utility: A SEER population-based study Yao Yuan, PhD, MPH, Alison Van Dyke, MD, PhD, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH & Valentina Petkov, MD, MPH NCI SEER SRP 2019 NAACCR/IACR Combined Annual Conference 06/11/2019

Contents Background Cases with linked test: DCIS test utilization Clinical utility SEER data quality assessment: Completeness and accuracy of test data items abstracted by registries Contents

Multigene prognostic tests for Breast Cancer Oncotype DX MammaPrint Prosigna/PAM50 EndoPredict Breast Cancer Index Mammostrat IHC4

Viera and Schmitt 2018. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00248

Oncotype DX- SEER linkage Oncotype DX DCIS: 12-gene test Risk score: 0-100. Risk groups: low risk ( DCIS score < 39), intermediate risk (DCIS score 39-54) and high risk (DCIS score ≥ 55). Prediction of 10-year risk of recurrence, and benefit from XRT. SEER data: Collected as SSF22 (Method) & 23 (Result). DCIS breast cancer cases diagnosed between 2011-2015. Picture adapted from Solin et al. 2013

Linked to DCIS test: N (%) DCIS test utilization Table 1: Histology distribution of linked SEER in situ breast cancer cases. Histology type Linked to DCIS test: N (%) Total DCIS 2,131 (3.2) 67,464* Papillary in situ 24 (1.8) 1,362 Others 14 (0.15) 9,373 2,169 (2.8) 78,199 *Only DCIS cases were included in following model analysis.

DCIS test utilization Only DCIS histology cases.

DCIS test utilization: Risk group defined by the test* N=146 “Cancelled test” N=129 “Failed test” N=11 “Non-unique” *DCIS histology only

Results I- Summary DCIS test were performed on non-DCIS histology cases. The proportion of DCIS patients receiving the test has been increasing since 2011. Most of the tested cases were in low risk group.

Age at diagnosis (year) Table 2: Factors associated with test utilization in SEER DCIS cases.* OR 95% CI P values Age at diagnosis (year) ≤ 45 Reference 45-54 1.07 0.91 1.26 55-64 1.02 0.87 1.20 65-74 0.96 0.81 1.13 ≥75 0.58 0.47 0.72 <0.001 Race White Black 0.88 0.76 1.03 Other 0.79 0.68 Unknown 0.92 0.61 1.37 Year of diagnosis 2011 2012 2.96 2.42 3.62 2013 3.06 2.50 3.74 2014 3.82 3.14 4.65 2015 5.60 4.63 6.77 *Only DCIS histology cases were included in the model.

Census track-based SES tertile Table 2: Factors associated with test utilization in SEER DCIS cases.* OR 95% CI P values Marital status Married Reference Separated/Divorced 0.81 0.69 0.94 <0.01 Single/Unmarried 1.02 0.89 1.16 Widowed 0.83 0.70 0.99 <0.05 Unknown 0.82 0.67 1.00 Insurance Insured Medicaid 0.73 0.60 <0.001 uninsured 0.79 1.71 unknown 1.29 0.98 1.69 Census track-based SES tertile 1st tertile 2nd tertile 1.10 0.96 1.25 3rd tertile 1.31 1.48 1.41 Continued *Only DCIS histology cases were included in the model.

OR 95% CI P values Grade Tumor size Table 2: Factors associated with test utilization in SEER DCIS cases.* OR 95% CI P values Grade I Reference II 0.99 0.87 1.12 III 0.63 0.55 0.73 <0.001 unknown 0.89 0.75 1.06 Tumor size ≤ 2cm 2-5cm 0.66 0.57 0.76 >5cm 0.48 0.35 0.65 0.90 0.80 1.01 Continued *Only DCIS histology cases were included in the model.

Results II-Summary Patients were less likely to receive the test if they were/had: ≥ 75 years. Larger and higher-grade tumors. Divorced or widowed. In Medicaid.

Test utility in clinical decisions: Chemotherapy Table 3: Association between DCIS test defined risk groups and chemotherapy decision.* Risk group OR** 95% CI P values Low Reference Intermediate 1.95 0.48 7.94 High 4.19 1.23 14.28 <0.05 *Model adjusted for year of diagnosis and marital status based on the lowest Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). **Receiving chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy/unknown.

Test utility in clinical decisions: Radiation Table 4: Association between DCIS test defined risk groups and radiation decision.* Risk group OR** 95% CI P values Low Reference Intermediate 2.42 1.85 3.16 <0.001 High 3.15 2.33 4.26 *Model adjusted for tumor size and grade, marital status and insurance based on the lowest AIC. **Receiving radiation vs no radiation/unknown.

Test utility in clinical decisions: Surgery Table 5: Association between DCIS test defined risk groups and surgery decision.* Risk group OR** 95% CI P values Low Reference Intermediate 2.42 1.85 3.16 <0.001 High 3.15 2.33 4.26 *Model adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, tumor size and insurance based on the lowest AIC. **Receiving mastectomy vs lumpectomy.

Results III-Summary Patients in higher risk group(s) were more likely to be associated with chemotherapy, radiation or mastectomy surgery, respectively, than in low risk group.

Conclusions for part I: cases with linked test Clinical adoption of the Oncotype DX DCIS test has been slowly increasing. The association between multiple demographic factors and receiving the test indicated disparities in the US population. Clinical factors also influenced whether patients received the test. Oncotype DX DCIS results were associated with treatment decisions.

SEER data quality assessment Table 6: Cross check SEER data and linked GHI data on Oncotype DX DCIS test.   GHI data on DCIS test Total No Test done without result reported Yes SEER SSF 22: Multigene signature methods Oncotype DX 501(30%) 39 1,108 1,648 MammaPrint 15 1 16 Other 197 3 203 Test performed, type unknown 50 2 53 Test not done 44,387 154 423 44,964 Unknown 30,880 95 340 31,315 76,030 292 1,877 78,199 2169

SEER data quality assessment Table 7: Abstraction errors in SEER data for DCIS test. GHI data: N(%) Total SEER data No Yes* 75,529 1,022 (47%) 76,551 Yes 501 1,147 1,648 76,030 2,169 78,199 *Included tested cases with or without results reported. All histology included

SEER data quality assessment Cases with valid test scores (0-100) recorded in SEER N=992 Kappa=0.96 Possibly entered in SEER as the % risk of recurrence instead of the score.

SEER data quality assessment: multiple primary tumors Cases (sent as DCIS) deemed as IBC by GHI pathologists and performed the Dx RS test? Table 9: Tumor numbers for cases not linked to DCIS but linked to RS test (invasive). Cases linked to Oncotype DX RS Total number of in situ/malignant tumors Yes*: n(%) 1 19(13) 2 110(75) 3 14(10) 4 3(2) Total 146 Diagnosed as DCIS first, followed by IBC, OR Diagnosed as IBC first, followed by DCIS. RS test date closer to DCIS diagnosis date, thus linked to DCIS tumor. *Included tested cases with or without results reported. All histology included.

Conclusions for part II: SEER data quality assessment SEER data items are questionable: Tests were not captured in the registry data. Test data were entered incorrectly. Data linkage is important for the completeness and accuracy of registry data.

Thank you! SEER registries participated in the linkage. Acknowledgement SEER registries participated in the linkage. Genomic Health (GHI) provided the data. Thank you! Questions: yao.yuan@nih.gov

SEER data quality assessment Table 8: Tested cases captured by SEER with no link to DCIS test . Cases linked to Oncotype DX RS (for invasive) Year of diagnosis No Yes*: n(%) Total 2011 39 38(49) 77 2012 31 39(56) 70 2013 43 52(55) 95 2014 105 9(8) 114 2015 137 8(5) 145 355 146(29) 501 *Included tested cases with or without results reported. All histology included. Linked to all breast cancer cases Linked to in situ cases