Patterns of Use of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test in a Kurdish Population of Patients with Breast Cancer: A Multi-Institutional, Retrospective Study
Abstract
Keywords
Oncotype DX; Breast Cancer; Recurrence Score; Genomic Testing; Kurdistan Region
Article
Introduction
Methodology
Study Design
The present research adopted a retrospective observational design, conducted over a period of five years (2018–2023). The objective of the study was to evaluate the utilization patterns of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® (ODX) test in patients with luminal-type, early-stage breast cancer in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
Study Setting
The study was conducted in four major oncology centers across the Kurdistan Region: The following medical facilities have been identified as oncology centers: Rizgary Oncology Center, Nanakali Hospital, Hiwa Hospital, and Azadi Oncology Center. A comprehensive understanding of ODX test usage was provided by the analysis of data retrieved from institutional records.
Inclusion Criteria
Patients were included if they met the following conditions:
- The patient was diagnosed with early-stage (T1–2, N0, M0) luminal-type breast cancer.
- The presence of invasive tumors measuring up to 5 centimeters was observed.
- The tumor status in question is characterized by the presence or absence of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression, in addition to HER2 status, which is defined as HER2-negative.
- The subject underwent surgical treatment within six weeks prior to testing.
- A comprehensive array of medical records was made available, encompassing histopathology and immunohistochemistry results.
Exclusion Criteria
Patients were excluded from the study if they:
- The subject's data regarding tumor characteristics, histopathology, and immunohistochemistry was incomplete.
- Patients who underwent surgical procedures lasting more than six weeks prior to undergoing ODX testing were excluded from the study, unless they had self-funded the test and met all other inclusion criteria.
Testing Accessibility Criteria
The test is available free of charge to any eligible patient. However, this is not always the case. This phenomenon is not exclusive to our region; significant disparities in the utilization of ODX among oncologists, patient populations, and geographical areas have been observed in other developed countries as well. These disparities are supported by compelling evidence (Matikas et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2021). The selection of patients was contingent upon the availability of complete medical records, including histopathology reports and immunohistochemistry results. The evaluation of ER, PR, and HER2 status was conducted in accordance with ASCO/CAP guidelines (Allison et al., 2020; Wolff et al., 2023). Furthermore, Ki-67 expression levels were evaluated by local pathologists employing a standardized and reliable method (Penault-Llorca & Radosevic-Robin, 2017).
Data Collection
Patient demographic information, tumor characteristics (size, grade, hormone receptor status, histology), and ODX Recurrence Score® results were extracted from electronic medical records. The assessment of Ki-67 expression levels was conducted by local pathologists, employing standardized methodologies to ensure the consistency and reliability of the results.
Ethical Approval
The study protocol received ethical clearance from the institutional review boards of all participating oncology centers. In accordance with the principles of confidentiality and ethical standards, all patient data were anonymized.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were performed using SPSS software to summarize patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and Recurrence Score® results. Furthermore, time intervals associated with the testing process, including the period from surgery to test request and result, were analyzed to ascertain potential delays and their ramifications.
Results
A total of 299 patients were included in the study. The median age of the patients was 52 years (range 26-87 years). The majority of the patients were female, with 98.3% (n = 295) of the subjects being female and 1.7% (n = 5) of the subjects being male (Table 1).
| Variable | (n)% |
| State of Residence | |
| Suly | 44.8 (134) |
| Erbil | 37.8 (113) |
| Duhok | 16.7 (50) |
| Baghdad | 0.7 (2) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 98.3 (294) |
| Male | 1.7 (5) |
| Age: Median (Range): 52 (26-87) | |
The surgical approaches employed in the study cohort are outlined as follows: 21.4% (n = 64) of patients underwent Modified Radical Mastectomy (MRM) with Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (ALND), while 7% (n = 21) had MRM with Axillary Lymph Node Sampling (ALNS), and 7.4% (n = 22) underwent MRM with Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB). Among the patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery, 14.4% (n = 43) underwent Wide Local Excision (WLE) with ALND, 11.4% (n = 34) underwent WLE with ALNS, and 31.8% (n = 95) underwent WLE with SLNB. A mere 1.3% of the sample (n = 4) exhibited WLE without the concomitant axillary procedure. However, data concerning the surgical approach was missing or unknown in 5.4% of cases (n = 16) (Table 2). The median number of resected lymph nodes among the entire cohort was six lymph nodes (range: 0-41) (Table 2).
| Variable | (n)% |
| Surgical Procedure | |
| MRM + ALND | 21.4 (64) |
| MRM + ALNS | 7 (21) |
| MRM + SLNB | 7.4 (22) |
| WLE + ALND | 14.4 (43) |
| WLE + ALNS | 11.4 (34) |
| WLE + SLNB | 31.8 (95) |
| WLE alone | 1.3 (4) |
| Missing data/Unknown | 5.3 (16) |
| Number of Resected Lymph Nodes: Median (Range): 6 (0-41) | |
Furthermore, only 2.4% of patients exhibited axillary node-positive disease (Table 3). A comparative analysis revealed that left-sided breast cancers exhibited a slightly higher prevalence (47.5%) compared to right-sided breast cancers, with only 2.3% of the cases manifesting bilateral breast tumors. The patient population exhibited a prevalence of unifocal or multifocal disease, with 76.3% (n=228) affected by unifocal disease and 18.7% (n=56) by multifocal disease. The predominant histological classification was identified as invasive ductal carcinoma, accounting for 83% of cases, in contrast to the 13% prevalence of invasive lobular carcinoma. The majority of the tumors were classified as grade II (62.9%), with lymphovascular invasion and perineural invasion documented in 17.1% (n=51) and 16.1% (n=48), respectively (Table 3).
| Variable | (n)% |
| Tumor Sidedness | |
| Right | 42.8 (154) |
| Left | 47.5 (120) |
| Bilateral | 2.3 (6) |
| Missing data/unknown | 7.4 (19) |
| Tumor Size (cm): Mean (±SD): 2.28 (0.9) | |
| Lymph Node Involvement | |
| Node positive | 2.4 (7) |
| Node negative | 97.6 (292) |
| Tumor Focality | |
| Unifocal | 76.3 (228) |
| Multifocal | 18.7 (56) |
| Missing data/unknown | 5 (15) |
| Histology | |
| Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) | 82.6 (247) |
| Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) | 12.7 (38) |
| Missing data/unknown | 4.7 (14) |
| Histological Subtypes | |
| Alveolar | 2.3 (7) |
| Classic | 4 (12) |
| Medullary | 2 (6) |
| Micropapillary | 1 (3) |
| Mucinous | 2.3 (7) |
| NOS | 77.9 (233) |
| Papillary | 3.3 (10) |
| Pleomorphic | 1.3 (4) |
| Tubular | 1 (3) |
| Missing data/unknown | 4.9 (14) |
| Grade | |
| I | 13.7 (41) |
| II | 62.9 (188) |
| III | 17.4 (52) |
| Missing data/unknown | 6 (18) |
| Lymphovascular Invasion (LVI) | |
| Absent | 72.6 (217) |
| Present | 17.1 (51) |
| Missing data/unknown | 10.3 (31) |
| Perineural Invasion (PNI) | |
| Absent | 55.5 (166) |
| Present | 16.1 (48) |
| Missing data/unknown | 28.4 (85) |
| Hormonal Receptors (HR) Status | |
| ER† | |
| Positive | 99.7 (298) |
| Negative | 0 (0) |
| Missing data/unknown | 0.3 (1) |
| PR† | |
| Positive | 98.4 (294) |
| Negative | 0 (0) |
| Missing data/unknown | 1.6 (5) |
| HER2 Status† | |
| Positive | 0 (0) |
| Negative | 98.7 (295) |
| Missing data/unknown | 1.3 (4) |
| Ki-67β | |
| ≤14 | 43.1 (129) |
| >14 | 45.5 (136) |
| Missing data/unknown | 11.4 (34) |
The Ki-67 proliferation index was evaluated in the study population. The results indicated that 43% of patients exhibited a Ki-67 index of ≤14%, while 45.5% of patients demonstrated a Ki-67 index of >14%. Furthermore, Ki-67 data was missing or unknown in 11.4% of the cases. The Oncotype Dx Recurrence Score results were as follows: low, 16.7%; intermediate, 54.5%; and high, 23.4% (Table 4).
| Variable | (n)% |
| Nottingham Prognostic Index | |
| ≥2.0 to ≤2.4 | 8.4 (25) |
| >2.4 to ≤3.4 | 33.1 (99) |
| >3.4 to ≤5.4 | 51.8 (155) |
| >5.4 | 0 (0) |
| Missing data/unknown | 6.7 (20) |
| Oncotype DX Score | |
| Low (RS 0-10) | 16.7 (50) |
| Intermediate (RS 11-25) | 54.5 (163) |
| High (RS > 26) | 23.4 (70) |
| Missing data/unknownµ | 5.4 (16) |
As illustrated in Table 5, the following data is presented: time intervals associated with the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test process for patients who underwent surgery. The temporal framework is delineated as such: Time Duration from Operation to Test Request: The median time interval from the surgical operation to the request for the Oncotype DX test was 26.5 days, with an interquartile range (IQR) and range spanning from 25 to 136 days. This interval signifies the duration required for oncologists to evaluate the necessity for the test and initiate the request. The second row of data presents the duration of the process, measured from the submission of the test request to the release of the result. The median interval from the test request date to the result release date was 22 days, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 13 to 156 days. This interval is indicative of the turnaround time for the Oncotype DX test, a critical component in decision-making regarding adjuvant therapy. The third row of data corresponds to the duration of the operation, from the initialization to the attainment of the desired result. The median overall time interval from the date of surgery to the receipt of the Oncotype DX test result was 52 days, with an interquartile range (IQR) and range of 29 to 175 days. This combined duration is of critical importance as it reflects the entire process, from surgery through to the availability of test results for guiding postoperative treatment. As indicated by the final row in Table 5, a significant proportion of patients were referred for testing within a brief timeframe following their surgical procedures. Specifically, the data reveals that 80% of patients underwent testing within a period of less than one week subsequent to their surgical operations.
| Time duration from operation to test request¥: Median (IQR, range): 26.5 Days (25,7-136 |
| Time duration from test request to result¥: Median (IQR, range): 22 Days (13,12-156) |
| Time duration from operation to result¥: Median (IQR, range): 52 Days (29; 20-175) |
| Number and Percentage of Patients who have been sent for the test in 6 weeks or less: 60/300 (80%) |
Discussion
Conclusion
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study protocol received ethical clearance from the institutional review boards of all participating oncology centers. In accordance with the principles of confidentiality and ethical standards, all patient data were anonymized.
Consent for Publication: Not applicable.
Availability of Data and Material: The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest/ Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Funding: The authors declare that this research received no external funding.
Author Contributions: H.T.H: Software, Writing – original draft, reviewing and editing. F.M.S: Methodology, Software and Data curation. S.S.O: Data curation, writing of the original draft and project administration. K.S.H, T.A.A: Validation, Investigation and writing and reviewing and editing. K.I.R: Conceptualization, Visualization and project administration.
Acknowledgment: Not applicable
Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies: The authors declare that no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation of this work.
References
- 1 Recommendations | Tumour profiling tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer | Guidance | NICE. (n.d.). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg58/chapter/1-Recommendations
- Abdou, Y., Gupta, M., Asaoka, M., Attwood, K., Mateusz, O., Gandhi, S., & Takabe, K. (2022). Left sided breast cancer is associated with aggressive biology and worse outcomes than right sided breast cancer. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 13377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16749-4
- Albain, K. S., Barlow, W. E., Shak, S., Hortobagyi, G. N., Livingston, R. B., Yeh, I.-T., Ravdin, P., Bugarini, R., Baehner, F. L., Davidson, N. E., Sledge, G. W., Winer, E. P., Hudis, C., Ingle, J. N., Perez, E. A., Pritchard, K. I., Shepherd, L., Gralow, J. R., Yoshizawa, C., … Hayes, D. F. (2010). Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. The Lancet Oncology, 11(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70314-6
- Allison, K. H., Hammond, M. E. H., Dowsett, M., McKernin, S. E., Carey, L. A., Fitzgibbons, P. L., Hayes, D. F., Lakhani, S. R., Chavez-MacGregor, M., Perlmutter, J., Perou, C. M., Regan, M. M., Rimm, D. L., Symmans, W. F., Torlakovic, E. E., Varella, L., Viale, G., Weisberg, T. F., McShane, L. M., & Wolff, A. C. (2020). Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 38(12), 1346–1366. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02309
- Amer, M. (2014). Genetic factors and breast cancer laterality. Cancer Management and Research, 191. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S60006
- Andre, F., Ismaila, N., Allison, K. H., Barlow, W. E., Collyar, D. E., Damodaran, S., Henry, N. L., Jhaveri, K., Kalinsky, K., Kuderer, N. M., Litvak, A., Mayer, E. L., Pusztai, L., Raab, R., Wolff, A. C., & Stearns, V. (2022). Biomarkers for Adjuvant Endocrine and Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 40(16), 1816–1837. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00069
- Ashok Kumar, P., Wang, D., Sinha, S., & Sivapiragasam, A. (2019). Does the time to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy effect outcome in patients with breast cancer? A National Cancer Database-based retrospective analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 37(15_suppl), e12054–e12054. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.e12054
- Breast Cancer. (2024). National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.org/login?ReturnURL=https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf
- Burstein, H. J., Curigliano, G., Thürlimann, B., Weber, W. P., Poortmans, P., Regan, M. M., Senn, H. J., Winer, E. P., Gnant, M., Aebi, S., André, F., Barrios, C., Bergh, J., Bonnefoi, H., Bretel Morales, D., Brucker, S., Burstein, H., Cameron, D., Cardoso, F., … Xu, B. (2021). Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for treatment of early breast cancer 2021. Annals of Oncology, 32(10), 1216–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.023
- Cheng, S.-A., Liang, L.-Z., Liang, Q.-L., Huang, Z.-Y., Peng, X.-X., Hong, X.-C., Luo, X.-B., Yuan, G.-L., Zhang, H.-J., & Jiang, L. (2018). Breast cancer laterality and molecular subtype likely share a common risk factor. Cancer Management and Research, Volume 10, 6549–6554. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S182254
- Ciriello, G., Gatza, M. L., Beck, A. H., Wilkerson, M. D., Rhie, S. K., Pastore, A., Zhang, H., McLellan, M., Yau, C., Kandoth, C., Bowlby, R., Shen, H., Hayat, S., Fieldhouse, R., Lester, S. C., Tse, G. M. K., Factor, R. E., Collins, L. C., Allison, K. H., … Zmuda, E. (2015). Comprehensive Molecular Portraits of Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Cell, 163(2), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.033
- Desmedt, C., Zoppoli, G., Gundem, G., Pruneri, G., Larsimont, D., Fornili, M., Fumagalli, D., Brown, D., Rothé, F., Vincent, D., Kheddoumi, N., Rouas, G., Majjaj, S., Brohée, S., Van Loo, P., Maisonneuve, P., Salgado, R., Van Brussel, T., Lambrechts, D., … Sotiriou, C. (2016). Genomic Characterization of Primary Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(16), 1872–1881. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.0334
- Dowsett, M., Cuzick, J., Wale, C., Forbes, J., Mallon, E. A., Salter, J., Quinn, E., Dunbier, A., Baum, M., Buzdar, A., Howell, A., Bugarini, R., Baehner, F. L., & Shak, S. (2010). Prediction of Risk of Distant Recurrence Using the 21-Gene Recurrence Score in Node-Negative and Node-Positive Postmenopausal Patients With Breast Cancer Treated With Anastrozole or Tamoxifen: A TransATAC Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(11), 1829–1834. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.4798
- Gagliato, D. de M., Gonzalez-Angulo, A. M., Lei, X., Theriault, R. L., Giordano, S. H., Valero, V., Hortobagyi, G. N., & Chavez-Macgregor, M. (2014). Clinical impact of delaying initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 32(8), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.7693
- Giuliano, A. E., Ballman, K. V., McCall, L., Beitsch, P. D., Brennan, M. B., Kelemen, P. R., Ollila, D. W., Hansen, N. M., Whitworth, P. W., Blumencranz, P. W., Leitch, A. M., Saha, S., Hunt, K. K., & Morrow, M. (2017). Effect of Axillary Dissection vs No Axillary Dissection on 10-Year Overall Survival Among Women With Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinel Node Metastasis. JAMA, 318(10), 918. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11470
- Kalinsky, K., Barlow, W. E., Gralow, J. R., Meric-Bernstam, F., Albain, K. S., Hayes, D. F., Lin, N. U., Perez, E. A., Goldstein, L. J., Chia, S. K. L., Dhesy-Thind, S., Rastogi, P., Alba, E., Delaloge, S., Martin, M., Kelly, C. M., Ruiz-Borrego, M., Gil-Gil, M., Arce-Salinas, C. H., … Hortobagyi, G. N. (2021a). 21-Gene Assay to Inform Chemotherapy Benefit in Node-Positive Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 385(25), 2336–2347. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2108873
- Kalinsky, K., Barlow, W. E., Gralow, J. R., Meric-Bernstam, F., Albain, K. S., Hayes, D. F., Lin, N. U., Perez, E. A., Goldstein, L. J., Chia, S. K. L., Dhesy-Thind, S., Rastogi, P., Alba, E., Delaloge, S., Martin, M., Kelly, C. M., Ruiz-Borrego, M., Gil-Gil, M., Arce-Salinas, C. H., … Hortobagyi, G. N. (2021b). 21-Gene Assay to Inform Chemotherapy Benefit in Node-Positive Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 385(25), 2336–2347. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2108873
- Kim, C., Tang, G., Pogue-Geile, K. L., Costantino, J. P., Baehner, F. L., Baker, J., Cronin, M. T., Watson, D., Shak, S., Bohn, O. L., Fumagalli, D., Taniyama, Y., Lee, A., Reilly, M. L., Vogel, V. G., McCaskill-Stevens, W., Ford, L. G., Geyer, C. E., Wickerham, D. L., … Paik, S. (2011). Estrogen Receptor ( ESR1 ) mRNA Expression and Benefit From Tamoxifen in the Treatment and Prevention of Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(31), 4160–4167. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.9615
- Krag, D. N., Anderson, S. J., Julian, T. B., Brown, A. M., Harlow, S. P., Costantino, J. P., Ashikaga, T., Weaver, D. L., Mamounas, E. P., Jalovec, L. M., Frazier, T. G., Noyes, R. D., Robidoux, A., Scarth, H. M., & Wolmark, N. (2010). Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology, 11(10), 927–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70207-2
- Loibl, S., André, F., Bachelot, T., Barrios, C. H., Bergh, J., Burstein, H. J., Cardoso, M. J., Carey, L. A., Dawood, S., Del Mastro, L., Denkert, C., Fallenberg, E. M., Francis, P. A., Gamal-Eldin, H., Gelmon, K., Geyer, C. E., Gnant, M., Guarneri, V., Gupta, S., … Harbeck, N. (2024). Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology, 35(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.016
- Lyman, G. H., Somerfield, M. R., Bosserman, L. D., Perkins, C. L., Weaver, D. L., & Giuliano, A. E. (2017). Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 35(5), 561–564. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0947
- Matikas, A., Foukakis, T., Swain, S., & Bergh, J. (2019). Avoiding over- and undertreatment in patients with resected node-positive breast cancer with the use of gene expression signatures: are we there yet? Annals of Oncology, 30(7), 1044–1050. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz126
- Paik, S., Shak, S., Tang, G., Kim, C., Baker, J., Cronin, M., Baehner, F. L., Walker, M. G., Watson, D., Park, T., Hiller, W., Fisher, E. R., Wickerham, D. L., Bryant, J., & Wolmark, N. (2004). A Multigene Assay to Predict Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated, Node-Negative Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(27), 2817–2826. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041588
- Paik, S., Tang, G., Shak, S., Kim, C., Baker, J., Kim, W., Cronin, M., Baehner, F. L., Watson, D., Bryant, J., Costantino, J. P., Geyer, C. E., Wickerham, D. L., & Wolmark, N. (2006). Gene Expression and Benefit of Chemotherapy in Women With Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(23), 3726–3734. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7985
- Penault-Llorca, F., & Radosevic-Robin, N. (2017). Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology, 49(2), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2016.11.006
- Perkins, C. I., Hotes, J., Kohler, B. A., & Howe, H. L. (2004). Association between Breast Cancer Laterality and Tumor Location, United States, 1994–1998. Cancer Causes & Control, 15(7), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CACO.0000036171.44162.5f
- Rakha, E. A., Reis-Filho, J. S., Baehner, F., Dabbs, D. J., Decker, T., Eusebi, V., Fox, S. B., Ichihara, S., Jacquemier, J., Lakhani, S. R., Palacios, J., Richardson, A. L., Schnitt, S. J., Schmitt, F. C., Tan, P.-H., Tse, G. M., Badve, S., & Ellis, I. O. (2010). Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Research, 12(4), 207. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2607
- Reis-Filho, J. S., & Pusztai, L. (2011). Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: classification, prognostication, and prediction. The Lancet, 378(9805), 1812–1823. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61539-0
- Sparano, J. A., Gray, R. J., Makower, D. F., Pritchard, K. I., Albain, K. S., Hayes, D. F., Geyer, C. E., Dees, E. C., Goetz, M. P., Olson, J. A., Lively, T., Badve, S. S., Saphner, T. J., Wagner, L. I., Whelan, T. J., Ellis, M. J., Paik, S., Wood, W. C., Ravdin, P. M., … Sledge, G. W. (2018). Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1804710
- Wolff, A. C., Somerfield, M. R., Dowsett, M., Hammond, M. E. H., Hayes, D. F., McShane, L. M., Saphner, T. J., Spears, P. A., & Allison, K. H. (2023). Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO–College of American Pathologists Guideline Update. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 41(22), 3867–3872. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02864
- Zhang, F., Chen, H., Luo, D., Xiong, Z., Li, X., Yin, S., Jin, L., Chen, S., Peng, J., & Lian, L. (2023). Lymphovascular or perineural invasion is associated with lymph node metastasis and survival outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. Cancer Medicine, 12(8), 9401–9408. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5701
- Zhu, X., Dent, S., Paquet, L., Zhang, T., Tesolin, D., Graham, N., Aseyev, O., & Song, X. (2021). How Canadian Oncologists Use Oncotype DX for Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients. Current Oncology, 28(1), 800–812. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28010077
Cite this article
Hamza, H. T., Salih, F. M., Omar, S. S., Hamadamin, K. S., Abdulrazzaq, T. A., & Rasul, K. I. (2025). Patterns of Use of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test in a Kurdish Population of Patients with Breast Cancer: A Multi-Institutional, Retrospective Study. Middle Eastern Cancer and Oncology Journal, 1(3), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.61706/MECOJ160157
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee Scientific Steps International Publishing Services, Dubai, UAE.
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).