Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Expert clinicians select genomic assays with nuance. For a patient where a low-risk result is desired to avoid chemotherapy, Oncotype DX may be chosen as it tends to yield more low-risk scores. Conversely, MammaPrint may be used for a chemo-hesitant patient, as it is more likely to return a high-risk result.

Related Insights

Trials like TaylorX and MINDACT use genomic scores to identify patients with early-stage, HR+/HER2- breast cancer who won't benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. This avoids significant toxicity for two-thirds to over 80% of patients who would have received it under older guidelines, without compromising their outcomes.

Data from the FLEX registry trial, supported by propensity score matching, indicates the survival benefit of adding anthracycline (Adriamycin) to chemotherapy is confined to patients with a MammaPrint High 2 (ultra-high risk) score. Patients in the High 1 group saw no additional benefit.

For premenopausal patients with extensive nodal disease (e.g., N2), the clinical indication for chemotherapy is so strong that even a low-risk genomic score would not be enough to withhold treatment. This highlights the primacy of clinical staging over genomic data in certain high-risk scenarios.

To preserve treatment options, oncologists employ a tactical approach to re-testing. They avoid re-biopsying a tumor with a known positive biomarker to prevent a negative result from jeopardizing drug coverage. Conversely, they are more likely to re-biopsy a previously negative tumor at recurrence, hoping to find a new, actionable mutation.

For patients with 1-3 positive nodes and low-risk biology (e.g., low-grade lobular, low recurrence score), experts are comfortable deferring chemotherapy. This challenges traditional node-based risk assessment, prioritizing tumor biology to avoid unnecessary toxicity in otherwise high-risk patients.

The Oncotype DX score effectively predicts the overall risk of recurrence for early-stage breast cancer, but it provides no information about the biological behavior of the tumor if it does recur. A tumor with a low-risk score can unfortunately return as a highly aggressive, dangerous disease, highlighting a critical limitation of the prognostic test.

In a subset analysis of the high-risk MONARCH-E trial, an inferred Oncotype score did not identify which patients benefited from the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib. This indicates that while such scores assess prognostic risk and guide chemotherapy decisions, they are not predictive biomarkers for selecting patients for this targeted therapy.

The RSClin tool integrates a patient's Oncotype DX score with their unique clinical-pathologic features, such as tumor size and grade. This provides a more accurate and personalized risk assessment, as the same genomic score can represent significantly different prognoses for patients who have low versus high clinical risk factors.

Experts advise against using gene expression profiling to escalate care for CSCC (e.g., deciding to add systemic therapy). Its primary utility is in de-escalation: a low-risk profile can provide an additional data point to support a decision for observation in a borderline high-risk case, helping to avoid overtreatment.

Oncotype DX risk scores are more influenced by estrogen-related genes, while other assays like MammaPrint are driven more by genes related to cell proliferation. This fundamental difference in their underlying biology can inform an oncologist's choice of which genomic test is most appropriate for a given patient's tumor.