Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Pathologist
  • Explore Pathology

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Research & Innovations
    • Product Profiles

    Featured Topics

    • Molecular Pathology
    • Infectious Disease
    • Digital Pathology

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Subspecialties
    • Oncology
    • Histology
    • Cytology
    • Hematology
    • Endocrinology
    • Neurology
    • Microbiology & Immunology
    • Forensics
    • Pathologists' Assistants
  • Training & Education

    Career Development

    • Professional Development
    • Career Pathways
    • Workforce Trends

    Educational Resources

    • Guidelines & Recommendations
    • App Notes

    Events

    • Webinars
    • Live Events
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Profiles & Community

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Pathologist / Issues / 2016 / Nov / A Personal(ized) Choice
Oncology Precision medicine Oncology Genetics and epigenetics Omics Molecular Pathology

A Personal(ized) Choice

Does precision medicine really make a difference in cancer care? Results of a recent study say it does

By Michael Schubert 11/17/2016 1 min read

Share

Precision medicine grabs a lot of headlines these days – new tests, new diseases, and new ways of personalizing treatment to individual patients. But with therapies and technologies advancing daily, sometimes it’s hard to see the wood for the trees. The University of Michigan School of Nursing’s Christopher Friese asked a simple question often overlooked: “Is precision medicine actually helping?”

Fortunately for the 1,527 patients he surveyed – and countless more who receive genetic and genomic testing to help guide treatment decisions – the answer seems to be yes (1). Friese asked women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer two questions: whether or not they had received the 21-gene recurrence score assay, which assesses a patient’s likelihood of relapse; and whether or not they had received chemotherapy. Current guidelines recommend the test for certain patients (those with particular tumor features and no spread of disease to the lymph nodes). A high score on the test indicates a need for chemotherapy. Ultimately, Friese and his colleagues found that most doctors’ testing recommendations were in line with the guidelines, and that the assay correlated well with treatment decisions. 87 percent of women with a high recurrence score (RS) received chemotherapy, whereas only 3 percent of those with a low RS did. Notably, 13 percent of women with no RS but a favorable prognosis were given chemotherapy – meaning that the assay may substantially reduce overtreatment. Although it seems doctors are using precision medicine well and satisfying patients (with most agreeing that the test was helpful and that they were happy with their treatment), Friese did note one area for improvement. Only 60 percent of patients accurately recalled their test results – which Friese believes could be remedied if both the assay and the outcome were better explained. Personalized treatment may be complicated, but it’s one more opportunity for pathologists to speak up and explain to patients the science behind their care.

Newsletters

Receive the latest pathology news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. CR Friese et al., “Chemotherapy decisions and patient experience with the recurrence score assay for early-stage breast cancer”, Cancer, [Epub ahead of print] (2016). PMID: 27775837.

About the Author(s)

Michael Schubert

While obtaining degrees in biology from the University of Alberta and biochemistry from Penn State College of Medicine, I worked as a freelance science and medical writer. I was able to hone my skills in research, presentation and scientific writing by assembling grants and journal articles, speaking at international conferences, and consulting on topics ranging from medical education to comic book science. As much as I’ve enjoyed designing new bacteria and plausible superheroes, though, I’m more pleased than ever to be at Texere, using my writing and editing skills to create great content for a professional audience.

More Articles by Michael Schubert

Explore More in Pathology

Dive deeper into the world of pathology. Explore the latest articles, case studies, expert insights, and groundbreaking research.

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

A Helping Hand from AI in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics
Precision medicine
A Helping Hand from AI in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics

February 8, 2022

3 min read

Using AI to enhance personalized healthcare for patients with prostate cancer

The Ultimate Vision for Rare Disease
Precision medicine
The Ultimate Vision for Rare Disease

February 28, 2022

1 min read

Genomics and computational pathology can take rare disease diagnostics to the next level

A Light in the Darkness
Precision medicine
A Light in the Darkness

March 4, 2022

2 min read

Spectroscopic liquid biopsy testing – a new route to brain cancer diagnostics

In-House Matters
Precision medicine
In-House Matters

April 7, 2022

3 min read

Molecular pathology is complex – and the benefits of keeping it local are extensive

False

The Pathologist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.