Genetic testing for breast cancer Revised guidelines
I had the OncotypeDX and learned a lot about the test and what can be inferred from it. I saw this article from and think people dealing with breast cancer might want to see the array of tests now available. For those with a first-ever tumor, please lobby for genetic testing...it can make a huge difference in your treatment options. One study of oncologists in Europe found that they are more likely to trust genetic test results than 'clinical history or observation.' And Oncotype occasionally gets tumor samples that were misdiagnosed as non-invasive while the tissue sample clearly showed invasive breast cancer. If your oncologist(s) opinion matches the later genetic test results, so much the better. The patient can be better reassured.
https://ascopost.com/issues/june-10-2022/asco-refines-guidance-on-using-biomarkers-for-adjuvant-endocrine-and-chemotherapy-in-early-stage-breast-cancer/
Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Breast Cancer Support Group.
Here's some more info on the "low" HER2.
The clinical trial is called: DESTINY-Breast04
https://ascopost.com/news/june-2022/fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan-nxki-doubles-progression-free-survival-in-her2-low-metastatic-breast-cancer/
It seems that this study pertains to metastatic cancers.
Except for this sentence at the beginning:
The use of fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki doubled progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care treatment plus conventional chemotherapy.
But then it goes on to discuss benefits with metastatic so I think that is where it is being used.
I have made it 7 years so far. I have always wondered if my HER2 should have been treated! They have not yet determined the threshold for "low" but I am pretty sure I would be in that group with my mixed results and final pathology that was almost on the line.
I might tweak that comment. There are sometimes diagnoses done before surgery but the OncotypeDX is done with tumor tissue removed at the time of surgery. So it's usually a post-surgical test and is done specifically to offer a risk/reward evaluation of chemo for the client whose tissue was submitted if the person has not has chemo or radiation.
BUT, it also provides a predicted risk of recurrence, local or regional, within 9 years if that client does not do chemo but did take anti-hormone therapy. Since anti-hormone therapy is currently considered to reduce risk of recurrence by 40-45%, one can calculate the risk of recurrence is one does NOT take anti-hormone therapy based on that number.
Radiation is not addressed by the OncotypeDX except that the test statistical model is based on not having had chemo or radiation within 2 years previously, for any cancer in the body.
Thanks! I've been reading about breast cancer since a Bad News Biopsy I'm Sept., 2021. But had not come upon ASCO before yet so good to now they're of value. There's so much dated info on the internet so I'm trying to just pay attention to the stuff that's actually relevant with today's choices.
My Cleveland Clinic onco is underwhelmed by the Ki-67 data and doesn't test for it. But if Oncotype does actually include it, then I guess I was tasted for it. It's not anywhere in the report that patients get that I can find so I don't know what my number is or was.
The OncotypeDX is used for early estrogen positive breast cancers. But I don't know if it's limited to non-metastatic cancers. And the parent company has other gene tests for other breast cancer questions. The Oncotype customer service is very good and could direct you further. They likely know what other companies are doing as well. It bothers me that not all oncologists are up to speed on what's available. In my opinion, @windyshores and others are amazingly resourceful at finding more help but it's a symptom of a fractured medical system that we have to...the good news being that we can share what we find with each other at least.
ki67% is one of several (7?) proliferative factors in the Oncotype, so not reported by itself, I was told.
Since my ki67% was highish, and my Oncotype was low, I wondered if my other proliferative factors were low!
ps my original Oncotype was after biopsy and I convinced one doc to redo it on one of my post-surgical blocks, because my tumor was so variegated. I even chose the block. (This was partly because biopsy specimens were HER2+ and post surgery specimens were equivocal then negative, so I didn't trust any results from the biopsy.)
I'm not sure how the 'pathology results were much worse' than the Oncotype. They are unrelated. Would it be fair to interpret your statement that the evaluation based on the pathologist's report suggested a cancer with a much higher recurrence risk than what Oncotype's genetic analysis of the tumor tissue reported back? That is, there was a difference of risk opinion between the clinical pathology profile of the tumor cells versus what the genetic testing suggested? I had a low OncotypeDX risk score. The Oncotype scientist told me that I had a really good result, no rogue alleles, no bad genes, no mutations. But I pointed out the irony is that I nonetheless had a 6mm tumor...
Just curious, have you been with the cancer center since the cancer was first dealt with? And do find they give excellent care and are really helpful? I've just the TV commercials for the corporate ones. My cancer seemed so plain vanilla that I went to a local branch of Cleveland Clinic. When I had the wide-needle biopsy, I started wondering if I'd have to go to M.D. Anderson or Sloan Kettering but was spared that though I read everything on their websites about their treatment for stage 1A DCIS and Cleveland Clinic's recommendations were the same.
The OncotypeDX was very reassuring in my case. I got a low risk score of essentially 5% risk of loco-regional recurrence within 9 years if I didn't have chemo or AIs. @windyshores had a very different path with a more complicated cancer. IF my oncologist thought I had a high risk, based on his 30+ years as a breast cancer oncologist, I'd have had to factor that in but he was happy with, but unsurprised by, the low score as it matched the pathologists finding of the post-surgery biopsy.
I'm with @windyshores in thinking that the OncotypeDX would be worth having done.