Comprehensive genomic profiling of acral and mucosal melanomas to support clinical decision making.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21629-e21629
Author(s):  
Anthony Classon ◽  
Kasey Couts ◽  
Laurie M. Gay ◽  
Bahar Yilmazel ◽  
Caitlin Patriquin ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 228-228
Author(s):  
Cristiane Decat Bergerot ◽  
Paulo Gustavo Bergerot ◽  
Joann Hsu ◽  
Nazli Dizman ◽  
Stacy W. Gray ◽  
...  

228 Background: Genomic profiling (GP) plays an important role in the care of patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, and has been used to guide clinical decision making. As age has been associated with low health literacy, we sought to determine comprehension of the goals and objectives of GP between younger (age < 65) and older (age ≥65) with genitourinary cancers. Methods: Eligible patients had agreed to receive somatic GP as a part of routine clinical care through a CLIA-certified commercially available platform. Participating physicians conducted a standardized dialogue with patients pertaining to the rationale for and clinical utility of somatic GP. Patients then received an in-person survey lasting approximately 10-15 min and assessing a broad range of perceptions related to GP. Results: Among 47 patients, 62% were characterized as older adults. Diagnoses encountered included kidney (43%), prostate (32%), and bladder (25%). Only older adults perceived any shortcomings in the description of GP. These shortcomings related to the clarity of the descriptions of genomic data, as well as the accuracy, detail and compassion with which this information was conveyed. Older adults demonstrated a very strong reliance on physician input in their decision to obtain somatic GP - 42% of older adults suggested that trust in their physician was among the top three reasons for which they opted to do genomic testing, in contrast to just 10% of younger patients (P = 0.04). Both older and younger patients demonstrated frequent misconceptions pertaining to the role of GP. For example, the majority of younger (78%) and older (52%) patients suggested the test was being performed for prognostic purposes. Both groups also frequently held the notion that somatic testing could identify hereditary cancer-related disorders (younger: 78% vs older: 66%). Conclusions: Detailed surveys of patients with genitourinary cancers reveal varied comprehension of somatic GP between younger and older patients. Interventions to enhance understanding of the principles of GP may be helpful in facilitating shared decision-making, particularly among older patients.


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