ReviewBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Limits of substitution and context-dependent selective omission of Oncotype DX recurrence score testing.
Review in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence score (RS) is widely used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early-stage estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. However, its high cost and frequent discordance with conventional clinicopathologic risk assessment raise questions regarding whether RS can be substituted by other indicators or selectively omitted in specific clinical settings. In this narrative review, we examined whether RS can be reliably predicted or replaced by clinicopathologic or pathology-derived factors, and whether there are patient groups in whom RS testing has limited impact on treatment decision-making. A comprehensive literature search and structured screening process identified 54 studies that treated RS as an outcome variable, together with additional reports addressing selective testing strategies. Across diverse analytical approaches, RS could not be consistently substituted by existing indicators. Although modest correlations were observed, substantial case-level discordance persisted, particularly within the intermediate RS range, where predictive performance deteriorated near clinically relevant decision thresholds. In contrast, RS testing appeared less influential in treatment decisions for patients with clearly defined low- or high-risk clinicopathologic profiles or favorable special histologic subtypes. Overall, current evidence indicates that RS cannot be reliably replaced by other indicators, while its clinical value varies by context, suggesting that a selective rather than uniform application of RS testing may be reasonable in some settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42149433What 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.