Observational studyBreast cancer research and treatment2021
Real-world analysis of clinical and economic impact of 21-gene recurrence score (RS) testing in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) in Ireland.
Observational study in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world implementation and cost impact analysis of Oncotype DX testing in early-stage breast cancer.PloS one · 2026Article
- Irish national real-world analysis of the clinical and economic impact of 21-gene oncotype DX® testing in early-stage, 1-3 lymph node-positive, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Observational
- Real-World Analysis of the Clinical and Economic Impact of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score (RS) in Invasive Lobular Early-Stage Breast Carcinoma in Ireland.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Observational
- Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- The Role of the 21-Gene Recurrence ScoreCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeResults from TAILOR-X suggest that up to 70% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) node-negative (N0) ESBC patients (pts) may avoid chemotherapy (CT) with RS ≤ 25. We assess clinical and economic impacts of RS testing on treatment using real-world data.
methodsFrom October 2011 to February 2019, a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study was conducted of HR+ N0 ESBC pts who had RS testing in Ireland. Pts were classified low risk (RS ≤ 25) and high risk (RS > 25). Clinical risk was calculated. Data were collected via electronic patient records. Cost data were supplied by the National Healthcare Pricing Regulatory Authority.
results963 pts. Mean age is 56 years. Mean tumour size is 1.7 cm. 114 (11.8%), 635 (66%), 211 (22%), 3 (0.2%) pts had G1, G2, G3 and unknown G, respectively. 796 pts (82.8%) low RS, 159 (16.5%) high RS and 8 pts (0.7%) unknown RS. 263 pts (26%) were aged ≤ 50 at diagnosis; 117 (45%) had RS 0-15, 63 (24.5%) 16-20, 39 (15.3%) 21-25 and 40 (15.2%) RS 26-100. 4 pts (1.5%) had unknown RS. Post-RS testing, 602 pts (62.5%) had a change in CT decision; 593 changed to hormone therapy (HT) alone. In total, 262 pts received CT. Of pts receiving CT; 138 (53%) had RS > 25, 124 (47%) had RS ≤ 25. Of pts aged ≤ 50, 153 (58%) had high clinical risk, of whom 28 had RS 16-20. Assay use achieved a 62.5% change in treatment with 73% of pts avoiding CT. This resulted in savings of €4 million in treatment costs. Deducting assay costs, savings of €1.9 million were achieved.
conclusionOver the 8 years of the study, a 62.5% reduction in CT use was achieved with savings of over €1,900,000.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.