Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34251881›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2021

Development and Validation of a Simulation Model-Based Clinical Decision Tool: Identifying Patients Where 21-Gene Recurrence Score Testing May Change Decisions.

Jinani Jayasekera, Joseph A Sparano, Suzanne O'Neill, Young Chandler, Claudine Isaacs, Allison W Kurian, Lawrence Kushi, Clyde B Schechter, Jeanne Mandelblatt

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Breast cancer survivors' perspectives on a clinical decision tool to support individualized exercise prescriptions and discussions.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

9 authors.

Jinani JayasekeraDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0001-9212-7225
Joseph A SparanoDepartment of Oncology at Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-9031-2010
Suzanne O'NeillDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0001-9942-6041
Young ChandlerDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-6561
Claudine IsaacsDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-9646-1260
Allison W KurianDepartments of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-6175-9470
Lawrence KushiDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA.ORCID 0000-0001-9136-1175
Clyde B SchechterDepartments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
Jeanne MandelblattDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-2490-005X

Funding

Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice and PolicyU01CA199218 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice & PolicyU01CA152958 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2010 to 2015
$7.6M
Bio-behavioral Research At The Intersection of Cancer and AgingR35CA197289 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MANDELBLATT, JEANNE · 2015 to 2021
$6.2M
A Simulation Model-based Framework to Support Oncology Guidelines and PracticeK99CA241397 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI JAYASEKERA, JINANI · 2020 to 2021
$351k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA241397NCI NIH HHS R35 CA197289NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152958NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199218
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is a need for industry-independent decision tools that integrate clinicopathologic features, comorbidities, and genomic information for women with node-negative, invasive, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (early-stage) breast cancer.

methodsWe adapted an extant Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation model to estimate the 10-year risk of distant recurrence, breast cancer-specific mortality, other-cause mortality, and life-years gained with chemoendocrine versus endocrine therapy. We simulated outcomes for 1,512 unique patient subgroups based on all possible combinations of age, tumor size, grade, and comorbidity level; simulations were performed with and without 21-gene recurrence scores (RSs). Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, large US cohort studies, registry, and claims data. External validation was performed by comparing results to observed rates in two independent sources. We highlight results for one scenario where treatment choice may be uncertain.

resultsChemoendocrine versus endocrine therapy in a 65-69-year-old woman with a small (≤ 2 cm), intermediate-grade tumor, and mild comorbidities provides a 1.3% absolute reduction in 10-year distant recurrence risk, with 0.23 life-years gained. With these tumor features, a woman like this will have a 28% probability of having an RS 16-20, 18% RS 21-25, and 11% RS 26+. If testing is done, and her RS is 16-20, chemoendocrine therapy reduces 10-year distant recurrence risk to 1%, with 0.20 life-years gained, a similar result as without testing. The absolute benefits would increase to 4.8%-5.5% if the RS was 26+. The model closely reproduced observed rates in both independent data sets.

conclusionOur validated clinical decision tool is flexible, readily adaptable to include new therapies, and can support discussions about genomic testing and early breast cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesGene Expression ProfilingTranscriptomeAgedAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingComorbidityComputer SimulationErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm InvasivenessAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID34251881
PMCPMC8425835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.