Person:
Hassett, Michael

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Hassett

First Name

Michael

Name

Hassett, Michael
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.3374e6e3-dc5e-4feb-b302-310b266a20b8

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Gene expression profile testing for breast cancer and the use of chemotherapy, serious adverse effects, and costs of care
    (Springer Science + Business Media, 2011) Haas, Jennifer; Liang, Su-Ying; Hassett, Michael; Shiboski, Stephen; Elkin, Elena B.; Phillips, Kathryn A.
    As gene expression profile (GEP) testing for breast cancer may provide additional prognostic information to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, we examined the association between GEP testing and use of chemotherapy, serious chemotherapy-related adverse effects, and total charges during the 12 months following diagnosis. Medical record review was conducted for women age 30-64 years, with incident, non-metastatic, invasive breast cancer diagnosed 2006-2008 in a large, national health plan. Of 534 patients, 25.8% received GEP testing, 68.2% received chemotherapy, and 10.5% experienced a serious chemotherapy-related adverse effect. GEP testing was most commonly used in women at moderate clinical risk of recurrence (52.0 vs. 25.0% of low-risk women and 5.5% of high-risk). Controlling for the propensity to receive GEP testing, women who had GEP were less likely to receive chemotherapy (propensity adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval 0.62, 0.39-0.99). Use of GEP was associated with more chemotherapy use among women at low risk based on clinical characteristics (OR = 42.19; CI 2.50-711.82), but less use among women with a high risk based on clinical characteristics (OR = 0.12; CI 0.03-0.47). Use of GEP was not associated with chemotherapy for the moderate risk group. There was no significant relationship between GEP use and either serious chemotherapy-associated adverse effects or total charges. While GEP testing was associated with an overall decrease in adjuvant chemotherapy, we did not find differences in serious chemotherapy-associated adverse events or charges during the 12 months following diagnosis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Clinical practice patterns and cost effectiveness of human epidermal growth receptor 2 testing strategies in breast cancer patients
    (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) Phillips, Kathryn A.; Marshall, Deborah A.; Haas, Jennifer; Elkin, Elena B.; Liang, Su-Ying; Hassett, Michael; Ferrusi, Ilia; Brock, Jane; Van Bebber, Stephanie L.
    BACKGROUND: Testing technologies are increasingly used to target cancer therapies. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing to target trastuzumab for patients with breast cancer provides insights into the evidence needed for emerging testing technologies. METHODS: The authors reviewed literature on HER2 test utilization and cost effectiveness of HER2 testing for patients with breast cancer. They examined available evidence on: percentage of eligible patients tested for HER2; test methods used; concordance of test results between community and central/reference laboratories; use of trastuzumab by HER2 test result; and cost effectiveness of testing strategies. RESULTS: Little evidence was available to determine whether all eligible patients are tested, how many are retested to confirm results, and how many with negative HER2 test results still receive trastuzumab. Studies suggested that up to 66% of eligible patients had no documentation of testing in claims records, up to 20% of patients receiving trastuzumab were not tested or had no documentation of a positive test, and 20% of HER2 results may be incorrect. Few cost-effectiveness analyses of trastuzumab explicitly considered the economic implications of various testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: There was little information about the actual use of HER2 testing in clinical practice, but evidence suggested important variations in testing practices and key gaps in knowledge exist. Given the increasing use of targeted therapies, it is critical to build an evidence base that supports informed decision making on emerging testing technologies in cancer care.