Resource document for curriculum development in cancer genetics education. American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 2157-2169 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Genetics Education ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
Curriculum Guidelines ◽  
American Society

PURPOSE The rapid growth in the use of genetic testing for heritable cancers and other diseases has led to the establishment of many committees to assess the status and future implications of such testing. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published a statement on genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in May 1996. In that statement, ASCO recognized the need for a major initiative to develop courses and other educational materials for ASCO members and other health care professionals that were pertinent to cancer genetics and the role of cancer predisposition testing in clinical oncology. These curriculum guidelines represent an effort to promote formal instruction on the assessment and management of familial cancer risks in training programs and continuing education courses. DESIGN AND RESULTS An Ad hoc Task Force was created from the ASCO membership and other professional organizations. Goals of ASCO's cancer genetics education initiative, curriculum guidelines, and plans for implementation of the curriculum have been developed. To gain understanding and competency in cancer genetics and cancer predisposition testing, the curriculum emphasizes formal instruction in: (1) basic concepts and principles of genetics; (2) an understanding of the role of genetics in the etiology, diagnosis, and management of different malignancies; (3) an understanding of the ethical, legal, and social issues that surround predisposition testing; and (4) long-term management plans for individuals at high risk for cancer. This document is broad in scope and applicable to all types of malignancies. It should be considered as the framework around which cancer genetics education is developed. It is expected that implementation of training activities over the next few years will allow ASCO to fulfill its obligations to the membership. CONCLUSION This curriculum should prove a valuable guide to those who wish further education on cancer genetics and the appropriate use of cancer predisposition testing.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement Update: Genetic and Genomic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (31) ◽  
pp. 3660-3667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E. Robson ◽  
Angela R. Bradbury ◽  
Banu Arun ◽  
Susan M. Domchek ◽  
James M. Ford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Susceptibility ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Massively Parallel Sequencing ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Inherited Susceptibility ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
The Impact

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has long affirmed that the recognition and management of individuals with an inherited susceptibility to cancer are core elements of oncology care. ASCO released its first statement on genetic testing in 1996 and updated that statement in 2003 and 2010 in response to developments in the field. In 2014, the Cancer Prevention and Ethics Committees of ASCO commissioned another update to reflect the impact of advances in this area on oncology practice. In particular, there was an interest in addressing the opportunities and challenges arising from the application of massively parallel sequencing—also known as next-generation sequencing—to cancer susceptibility testing. This technology introduces a new level of complexity into the practice of cancer risk assessment and management, requiring renewed effort on the part of ASCO to ensure that those providing care to patients with cancer receive the necessary education to use this new technology in the most effective, beneficial manner. The purpose of this statement is to explore the challenges of new and emerging technologies in cancer genetics and provide recommendations to ensure their optimal deployment in oncology practice. Specifically, the statement makes recommendations in the following areas: germline implications of somatic mutation profiling, multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility, quality assurance in genetic testing, education of oncology professionals, and access to cancer genetic services.

Developing National Guidance on Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Predisposition: The Role of Economic Evidence?

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 580-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Sullivan ◽  
D. Gareth Evans ◽  
William G. Newman ◽  
Simon C. Ramsden ◽  
Hans Scheffer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Economic Evidence ◽  
Breast Cancer Predisposition ◽  
National Guidance

scholarly journals Improving interpretation of genetic testing for hereditary hemorrhagic, thrombotic, and platelet disorders

Hematology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-81
Author(s):  
Michele P Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Conflicting Information ◽  
New Information ◽  
National Human ◽  
Disease Associations ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Platelet Disorders ◽  
American Society ◽  
Serious Disease

Abstract The last 10 years have seen an explosion in the amount of data available through next-generation sequencing. These data are advancing quickly, and this pace makes it difficult for most practitioners to easily keep up with all of the new information. Complicating this understanding is sometimes conflicting information about variant pathogenicity or even about the role of some genes in the pathogenesis of disease. The more widespread clinical use of sequencing has expanded phenotypes, including the identification of mild phenotypes associated with previously serious disease, such as with some variants in RUNX1, MYH9, ITG2A, and others. Several organizations have taken up the task of cataloging and systematically evaluating genes and variants using a standardized approach and making the data publicly available so that others can benefit from their gene/variant curation. The efforts in testing for hereditary hemorrhagic, thrombotic, and platelet disorders have been led by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific Standardization Committee on Genomics in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute Clinical Genome Resource. This article outlines current efforts to improve the interpretation of genetic testing and the role of standardizing and disseminating information. By assessing the strength of gene–disease associations, standardizing variant curation guidelines, sharing genomic data among expert members, and incorporating data from existing disease databases, the number of variants of uncertain significance will decrease, thereby improving the value of genetic testing as a diagnostic tool.

scholarly journals American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement Update: The Critical Role of Phase I Trials in Cancer Research and Treatment

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Weber ◽  
Laura A. Levit ◽  
Peter C. Adamson ◽  
Suanna Bruinooge ◽  
Howard A. Burris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
American Society

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy for Relationships With Companies: Background and Rationale

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (16) ◽  
pp. 2037-2042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Educational Content ◽  
Rigorous Evaluation ◽  
Interest Management ◽  
Interest Policy ◽  
American Society

The American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) new conflict of interest policy reflects a commitment to transparency and independence in the development and presentation of scientific and educational content. ASCO supports thorough and accessible disclosure of financial relationships with companies at institutional and individual levels and calls for rigorous evaluation of content in light of the information disclosed. For abstracts and articles presenting original research, ASCO holds first, last, and corresponding authors to a clear standard of independence. In imposing restrictions, the new policy focuses on the role of these authors rather than of the principal investigator(s) as in the previous policy. ASCO remains actively engaged with the broader scientific community in seeking and implementing efficient, effective approaches to conflict of interest management.

Training resource document for curriculum development in medical oncology. Adopted on February 20, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 372-379 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Subspecialty Training ◽  
Curriculum Guidelines ◽  
Frame Work ◽  
American Society ◽  
Outpatient Settings

PURPOSE: Medical oncology is a rapidly growing profession, not only in its membership, but in its knowledge-base as well. In order to keep pace with the changing profile of health care delivery and still ensure uniform quality subspecialty training, a template for education is needed. DESIGN AND RESULTS: An Ad Hoc Committee was created from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership. Goals of training were discussed and curriculum guidelines were created. To gain special expertise in medical oncology, the curriculum emphasizes formal instruction in the following: (1) the treatment of individual malignancies, with an emphasis on a coordinated multidisciplinary approach; (2) a clinical experience that emphasizes patient management in both the inpatient and outpatient settings; (3) the ability to perform specified procedures; and (4) the key tools in basic science that apply to patient management. This document should be considered the educational frame work around which a curriculum is developed.

The American society of clinical oncology position on genetic testing

Cancer ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 80 (S3) ◽  
pp. 632-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy E. Garber ◽  
Kenneth Offit ◽  
O. I. (Funmi) Olopade ◽  
Diane Fink ◽  
Avi Barbasch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
American Society

The importance of continued surveillance of high risk cancer families as illustrated in a family with Gardner’s syndrome

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1551-1551
Author(s):  
R. D. Legare ◽  
J. Scalia-Wilbur ◽  
J. Kent
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Susceptibility ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Soft Tissue Tumors ◽  
Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Predisposition Genes ◽  
High Risk Cancer ◽  
Lost To Follow Up

1551 Background: The scientific community continues to rapidly discover cancer predisposition genes allowing high risk families to identify underlying genetic abnormalities providing more individualized medical management. Therefore, continued follow-up becomes critical and is exemplified by Family A, a case that had been lost to follow-up for almost 40 years. Family A was first reported in the literature in 1955 by Weiner and Cooper presenting with a dominant inheritance pattern of osteomatosis, multiple soft tissue tumors and colorectal adenomatosis polyposis consistent with several families previously reported by Gardner et al. between 1950–1953. The clinical diagnosis of Gardner syndrome was established. In 1969 Coli et al. further described the phenotypic manifestations of Family A’s second and third generations after which the family was largely lost to follow-up until two second generation members presented to our high-risk clinic. Methods: An updated family history was collected and compared to that previously reported in the literature. Results: An updated pedigree revealed new cases of breast, ovarian and primary peritioneal cancers in the second and third generations. A 39 year old woman diagnosed with a glioblastoma was also discovered. No family members had undergone genetic testing, however, analyses of the APC and BRCA genes are underway. Conclusions: The presence of multiple newly reported cases of breast and ovarian cancers within Family A raises concern for two independent cancer predisposition syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility syndrome (HBOCS) as well as Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP). Though rarely gynecological tumors have been reported in FAP, this case emphasizes the need for practitioners to be aware of the potential presence of multiple hereditary cancer syndromes in one family. The dynamic changes in the pedigree of Family A underscore the importance of continued follow up for cancer families in which the underlying etiology is unknown. Such families should be followed in cancer genetics clinics to update family histories, ensure that appropriate screening regimens are followed, and to offer genetic testing if the appropriate analysis becomes available. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Referral for genetic counseling and testing in BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndromes: A nationwide study based on 240,134 consultations and 134,652 genetic tests.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1528-1528
Author(s):  
Pascal Pujol ◽  
Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet ◽  
Thierry Frébourg ◽  
Julien Blin ◽  
Marie Christine Picot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Lynch Syndrome ◽  
Cancer Genetics ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Genetic Tests ◽  
Nationwide Study ◽  
Cancer Predisposition Syndrome ◽  
Mmr Genes ◽  
Standardized Parameters

1528 Background: Patients referral to dedicated consultations for cancer predisposition syndrome has become a standard in clinical practice. Based on nationwide data from the French national cancer institute (NCI), we analyzed the evolution of cancer genetics consultations and testing over time, and the uptake of targeted tests in relatives of families with a BRCA1/2 or MMR mutation. Methods: All French cancer genetics centres completed annually a survey collecting standardized parameters for the NCI from 2003 to 2011. We report on the analysis of a total of 240,134 consultations and 134,652 genetic tests that enabled to identify 32,494 mutation carriers. Results: From 2003 to 2011, 141,639 (59 %) and 55,698 (23.2 %) patients were referred for a breast or a colorectal cancer predisposition syndrome, respectively. During this period, we found a dramatic and steadily increase in genetic tests performed for the BRCA1/2 genes (from 2095 to 7393 tests/year, P<0.0001) but not for the MMR genes (from 1144 to 1635/year, P=NS). The percentage of deleterious mutations identified in the probands tested was 13.8 % and 20.9 % in BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndromes, respectively. In families with a BRCA1/2 or a MMR identified mutation, there was an average number of 3.03 relatives performing target tested. Conclusions: This nationwide study shows a lack of referral and genetic testing in Lynch syndrome as compared to BRCA1/2 syndrome. Only a third of relatives for a proband identified with a BRCA1/2 or MMR gene mutations performed a genetic targeted test. Enhanced information about validated benefit of genetic testing should be given to clinicians and patients particularly for Lynch syndrome and for relatives of a proband carrying an identified BRCA1/2 or MMR genes mutation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document