Genetic Testing in Pheochromocytoma: Increasing Importance for Clinical Decision Making

2006 ◽  
Vol 1073 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R BORNSTEIN ◽  
A.-P. GIMENEZ-ROQUEPLO
2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1568-1568
Author(s):  
Navdeep Dehar ◽  
Tasnima Abedin ◽  
Patricia A. Tang ◽  
D. Gwyn Bebb ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung

1568 Background: With the increasing number and frequency of biomarker and genetic tests that are offered to patients with cancer, it is important to ensure that they fully understand the implications of these tests. In this survey study, we aimed to compare the attitudes and expectations of patients and cancer physicians about the role of biomarker and genetic testing in clinical decision-making. Methods: Two separate, complimentary, self-administered questionnaires for cancer patients and their physicians, respectively, were collected in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Survey responses from patients were subsequently matched with those of their corresponding oncologists to form patient–oncologist dyads. We determined the concordance rates between responses of patients and those of their oncologists. Results: A total of 113 patients and 15 physicians participated in the study from July to September 2019. Patients demonstrated good understanding of general cancer biology (79%) and diagnostic processes (91%) associated with precision oncology. About 70% patients were willing to undergo minor procedures, and participate in research involving biomarker or genetic testing; however, this was over-estimated by their physicians in 82% of cases. Many patients felt that their tumor should be tested to guide treatment (70%) and were not bothered by potential delays in treatment due to testing (23%). These views from patients were largely shared by their oncologists (concordance 64%). While only 28% patients thought that they had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, majority (68%) said that they needed more information. Importantly, knowledge and expectations regarding the applications of biomarker or genetic test results on actual diagnosis and prognosis were grossly discrepant between patients and their oncologists (concordance 26% and 36%, respectively). Conclusions: Patients and cancer physicians tend to be aware of the advances in precision oncology and are willing to participate in biomarker and genetic testing and research. However, they do not consistently agree about the roles and applications of these tests, which may result in misplaced expectations. Strategies to improve education and communication are needed to align these expectations and improve the quality of clinical decision-making.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 164-164
Author(s):  
Mariella Tejada ◽  
June YiJuan Hou ◽  
Katherine D. Crew ◽  
Melissa Kate Accordino ◽  
Kevin Kalinsky ◽  
...  

164 Background: Germline genetic testing plays an important role in informing cancer screening and risk-reducing strategies, as well as treatment decisions with PARP inhibitors for BRCA-associated malignancies. Referrals to clinical genetics for pre-test counseling and results disclosure can be delayed due to financial and logistical barriers, which may ultimately delay clinical decision-making. Our study objective was to understand patient attitudes, knowledge, and anxiety/distress with point-of-care (POC) genetic testing in breast and gynecologic oncology clinics. Methods: We enrolled patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment, metastatic breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or endometrial cancer undergoing POC multigene panel testing with their primary oncologist, rather than a genetic counselor. Pre-test counseling came from discussion with their primary oncologist. Participants completed a survey at time of genetic testing and one after return of genetic test results. Validated measures of genetic testing knowledge, cancer-related distress, and attitudes towards genetic testing were included. Descriptive statistics were generated for all data collected and paired t-tests were conducted for baseline and follow-up comparisons. Results: We enrolled 106 subjects, of which 97 completed the baseline survey. All participants were female with a mean age of 61.5 years (SD 13.5). The cohort consisted of participants with the following tumor types: 80 breast, 2 ovarian, and 16 endometrial. Almost 44% of women identified as Hispanic/Latina, 55% had highest level of education of community/technical college or less, and 51.2% reported annual incomes of less than $50,000. Forty-seven percent of participants had adequate baseline genetic testing knowledge scores (defined as at least 50% correct responses). A majority of participants (86.6%) had positive attitudes toward undergoing genetic testing. Results of genetic testing revealed 11 participants (11.3%) with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (of which 36.3% were in BRCA1/2), 25 (25.8%) with variants of unknown significance (VUS), and 61 (62.9%) with benign or likely benign results. The mean cancer-related distress score (scale from 15 to 60, higher score indicates higher levels of distress) was 32.78 (SD 9.74) at baseline and 26.5 (SD 8.9) after receiving genetic testing results (p = 0.002). Genetic test results informed cancer treatment decisions regarding medications and surgery in 15% and 13% of patients, respectively, the majority of which were breast cancer patients. Conclusions: As genetic testing is more frequently used for clinical decision-making it is important to develop ways to efficiently integrate POC testing in the oncology clinics. We demonstrated that POC genetic testing for breast and gynecologic cancers is feasible and can inform clinical decision-making.


2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes Hoelz ◽  
Christian Herdl ◽  
Lucia Gerstl ◽  
Moritz Tacke ◽  
Katharina Vill ◽  
...  

Background. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) describes new powerful techniques of nucleic acid analysis, which allow not only disease gene identification diagnostics but also applications for transcriptome/methylation analysis and meta-genomics. NGS helps identify many monogenic epilepsy syndromes. Pediatric epilepsy patients can be tested using NGS epilepsy panels to diagnose them, thereby influencing treatment choices. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of genetic testing on clinical decision making in pediatric epilepsy patients. Methods. We completed a single-center retrospective cohort study of 91 patients (43 male) aged 19 years or less undergoing NGS with epilepsy panels differing in size ranging from 5 to 434 genes from October 2013 to September 2017. Results. During a mean time of 3.6 years between symptom onset and genetic testing, subjects most frequently showed epileptic encephalopathy (40%), focal epilepsy (33%), and generalized epilepsy (18%). In 16 patients (18% of the study population), “pathogenic” or “likely pathogenic” results according to ACMG criteria were found. Ten of the 16 patients (63%) experienced changes in clinical management regarding their medication and avoidance of further diagnostic evaluation, that is, presurgical evaluation. Conclusion. NGS epilepsy panels contribute to the diagnosis of pediatric epilepsy patients and may change their clinical management with regard to both preventing unnecessary and potentially harmful diagnostic procedures and management. Thus, the present data support the early implementation in order to adopt clinical management in selected cases and prevent further invasive investigations. Given the relatively small sample size and heterogeneous panels a larger prospective study with more homogeneous panels would be helpful to further determine the impact of NGS on clinical decision making.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document