Impact of Oncotype-DX testing on choice of chemotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e12049 Background: The Oncotype DX test has been shown to change treatment plans in ~30% of cases, but it is unclear if it changes the type of chemotherapy offered. We sought to determine if the availability of Oncotype DX testing in BC resulted in a change in the type of chemotherapy regimens used on early stage breast cancer pts. Methods: This was a cohort study in which pts treated in the 2 years prior to the availability of Oncotype Dx testing were compared to pts treated in the 2 years after it became available in BC. Charts were audited and divided into pre- and post- availability of Oncotype DX testing. The groups were compared for differences in length of chemotherapy (12 vs > 12 weeks), type of agents used (anthracycline vs non-anthracycline) and myelosuppressive potential of regimen chosen. Results: A total of 831 pts fulfilled enrollment criteria; 360 were seen in the pre Oncotype era and 471 were seen in the post Oncotype era. A total of 250 (30.1%) pts were treated with chemotherapy in both cohorts with a median age of 59 for both groups (range of 29-80 and 24-80 respectively, p = NS). There was a decrease of 11.5% in pts receiving chemotherapy from 36.6% to 25.1% (p = 0.0003). Of the pts who received chemotherapy, there was a shift away from regimens containing anthracycline (49.2% vs 32.2%, p = 0.0070) and a shift towards more myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens (p = 0.0344). There was a significant difference in the duration of chemotherapy regimens chosen with post Oncotype era pts receiving short course chemotherapy 69.5% of the time, compared to only 56.8% in the pre Oncotype era (p = 0.0491). Conclusions: The availability of Oncotype DX testing has resulted in a shift towards use of shorter, more myelosuppressive, non-anthracycline containing chemotherapy protocols. Since being publicly available, fewer pts are receiving chemotherapy but our data suggests a 10% change in treatment plan compared to the 30% change seen in other literature. Further study is warranted to ensure long term outcomes are not negatively impacted by the move towards shorter chemotherapy regimens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".