Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26890451›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016

Implementation of the 21-gene recurrence score test in the United States in 2011.

Julie A Lynch, Brygida Berse, Valentina Petkov, Kelly Filipski, Yingjun Zhou, Muin J Khoury, Michael Hassett, Andrew N Freedman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Julie A LynchVA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0108-2127
Brygida BerseRTI International, Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Valentina PetkovNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Kelly FilipskiNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Yingjun ZhouNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Muin J KhouryOffice of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Michael HassettDana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Andrew N FreedmanNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
National Institutes of Health · USBoston University · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USHarvard University · USRTI International · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe examined hospital use of the 21-gene breast cancer test in the United States. We report state-level differences in utilization and propose a model for predicting implementation of guideline-recommended genomic testing.

methodsGenomic Health provided test orders for calendar year 2011.We summarized utilization at the hospital and state levels. Using logistic regression, we analyzed the association between the likelihood to order the test and the hospital's institutional and regional characteristics.

resultsIn 2011, 45% of 4,712 acute-care hospitals ordered the test, which suggests that 25% of newly diagnosed invasive female breast cancer cases were tested. Significant predictors of testing included participation in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical research cooperative groups (odds ratio (OR) 3.73; 95% confidence interval, 2.96-4.70), advanced imaging (OR, 2.19; CI, 1.78-2.68), high-complexity laboratory (OR, 2.15; CI, 1.24-3.70), affiliation with a medical school (OR, 1.57; CI, 1.31-1.88), and reconstructive surgery (OR, 1.23; CI, 1.01-1.50). Significant regional predictors included metropolitan county (OR, 3.77; CI, 2.83-5.03), above-mean income (OR, 1.37; CI, 1.11-1.69), and education (OR, 1.26; CI, 1.03-1.54). Negative predictors included designation as a critical-access hospital (OR, 0.10; CI, 0.07-0.14) and distance from an NCI cancer center (OR, 0.998; CI, 0.997-0.999), with a 15% decrease in likelihood for every 100 miles.

conclusionDespite considerable market penetration of the test, there are significant regional and site-of-care differences in implementation, particularly in rural states.Genet Med 18 10, 982-990.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Neoplasm ProteinsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPredictive Value of TestsUnited StatesNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26890451
OpenAlexW2415819353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.