How Canadian Oncologists Use Oncotype DX for Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature suggests that medical oncologists differ on how they use the Oncotype DX (ODX) genomic assay for making decisions about systemic therapy in breast cancer patients. Given the emergence of data supporting the use of genomic profiling for the prognosis and predicting benefit of chemotherapy, we surveyed medical oncologists in Canada to assess their usage and perception of the ODX assay. METHODS: A 34-item survey was distributed to Canadian medical oncologists via the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Data was collected on physician demographics, ODX usage patterns, and physicians' perception of the impact clinical and pathologic characteristics make on ODX utilization. RESULTS: Response rate was 20.6% with 47 responses received from 228 survey sent. Forty-five responses were eligible for analysis. Sixty-two percent (28/45) of respondents treated predominantly breast cancer, and 60% (27/45) have been in practice for at least 10 years. The most cited reason for using ODX was to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy (64%; 29/45). Sixty-seven percent (30/45) deferred making treatment decisions until ODX testing was completed. Factors most strongly impacting ODX utilization included: patient request, medical comorbidities and tumor grade. In clinical scenarios, ODX was more frequently selected for patients aged 40-65 (vs. <40 or >65), grade 2 tumors (vs. grade 1 or 3), and Ki-67 index of 10-20% (vs. <10% or >20%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated that Canadian medical oncologists are preferentially using ODX to avoid giving patients unnecessary chemotherapy. The utilization of ODX is mainly in patients with intermediate clinical and pathologic features.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".