A comparison of patients' and physicians' expectations regarding precision oncology tests.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1568-1568
Author(s):  
Navdeep Dehar ◽  
Tasnima Abedin ◽  
Patricia A. Tang ◽  
D. Gwyn Bebb ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Diagnosis And Prognosis ◽  
Genetic Test Results ◽  
Survey Responses

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.

Integration of germline multigene panel testing into breast and gynecologic oncology clinics.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 164-164
Author(s):  
Mariella Tejada ◽  
June YiJuan Hou ◽  
Katherine D. Crew ◽  
Melissa Kate Accordino ◽  
Kevin Kalinsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Genetic Test Results

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.

The Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board Precision Oncology elective for Medical Oncology fellows.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11035-11035
Author(s):  
Kristen Marrone ◽  
Jessica Tao ◽  
Jenna VanLiere Canzoniero ◽  
Paola Ghanem ◽  
Emily Nizialek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Genomics ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Adaptive Expertise ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

11035 Background: The accelerated impact of next generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical decision making requires the integration of cancer genomics and precision oncology focused training into medical oncology education. The Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board (JH MTB) is a multi-disciplinary effort focused on integration of NGS findings with critical evidence interpretation to generate personalized recommendations tailored to the genetic footprint of individual patients. Methods: The JH MTB and the Medical Oncology Fellowship Program have developed a 3-month precision oncology elective for fellows in their research years. Commencing fall of 2020, the goals of this elective are to enhance the understanding of NGS platforms and findings, advance the interpretation and characterization of molecular assay outputs by use of mutation annotators and knowledgebases and ultimately master the art of matching NGS findings with available therapies. Fellow integration into the MTB focuses on mentored case-based learning in mutation characterization and ranking by levels of evidence for actionability, with culmination in form of verbal presentations and written summary reports of final MTB recommendations. A mixed methods questionnaire was administered to evaluate progress since elective initiation. Results: Three learners who have participated as of February 2021 were included. Of the two who had completed the MTB elective, each have presented at least 10 cases, with at least 1 scholarly publication planned. All indicated strong agreement that MTB elective had increased their comfort with interpreting clinical NGS reports as well as the use of knowledgebases and variant annotators. Exposure to experts in the field of molecular precision oncology, identification of resources necessary to interpret clinical NGS reports, development of ability to critically assess various NGS platforms, and gained familiarity with computational analyses relevant to clinical decision making were noted as strengths of the MTB elective. Areas of improvement included ongoing initiatives that involve streamlining variant annotation and transcription of information for written reports. Conclusions: A longitudinal elective in the JHU MTB has been found to be preliminarily effective in promoting knowledge mastery and creating academic opportunities related to the clinical application of precision medicine. Future directions will include leveraging of the MTB infrastructure for research projects, learner integration into computational laboratory meetings, and expansion of the MTB curriculum to include different levels of learners from multiple medical education programs. Continued elective participation will be key to understanding how best to facilitate adaptive expertise in assigning clinical relevance to genomic findings, ultimately improving precision medicine delivery in patient care and trial development.

scholarly journals Predicting Clinical Outcomes Using Molecular Biomarkers

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. BIC.S33380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry B. Burke
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Molecular Biomarkers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Diagnosis And Prognosis ◽  
Molecular Therapies ◽  
Physician Patient

Over the past 20 years, there has been an exponential increase in the number of biomarkers. At the last count, there were 768,259 papers indexed in PubMed.gov directly related to biomarkers. Although many of these papers claim to report clinically useful molecular biomarkers, embarrassingly few are currently in clinical use. It is suggested that a failure to properly understand, clinically assess, and utilize molecular biomarkers has prevented their widespread adoption in treatment, in comparative benefit analyses, and their integration into individualized patient outcome predictions for clinical decision-making and therapy. A straightforward, general approach to understanding how to predict clinical outcomes using risk, diagnostic, and prognostic molecular biomarkers is presented. In the future, molecular biomarkers will drive advances in risk, diagnosis, and prognosis, they will be the targets of powerful molecular therapies, and they will individualize and optimize therapy. Furthermore, clinical predictions based on molecular biomarkers will be displayed on the clinician's screen during the physician–patient interaction, they will be an integral part of physician–patient-shared decision-making, and they will improve clinical care and patient outcomes.

scholarly journals Support systems to guide clinical decision-making in precision oncology: The Cancer Core Europe Molecular Tumor Board Portal

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 992-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Tamborero ◽  
◽  
Rodrigo Dienstmann ◽  
Maan Haj Rachid ◽  
Jorrit Boekel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

scholarly journals Observational Study of the Multisciplinaryteam role (MDT) on Healthcare Management of Cancer Patients: Benefits and Barriers, AbuDhabi 2017

2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
Ibtisam Hussein Al Obaidi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Healthcare Management ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
The Impact

Background: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are designed to optimize patient outcomes. It appears intuitive that MDTs are essential to clinical decision - making and patient management; however, it is unclear whether that belief is supported by evidence. With regard to cancer patients, studies demonstrated that  treatment plans made by interacting health care professionals are more effective than those made by individual practitioners. Objectives: To assess the impact of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) on clinical decision - making and  patient outcomes. Methods: We follow a descriptive questionnaire survey study design and created a (10) sections  surveymonkey that was distributed via email to (150) experts in surgical oncology, general surgery, oncology, radiation oncology, pathologists, and administrative staff. Fourty (40) completed responses were collected to ensure a statistical basis on which to draw sound conclusions. The remaining 110 staff have submitted incomplete answers. Answers were discussed in a separate MDT meeting with most of the  participants.The survey was followed by an interpretation of the respondents’ results and comparison with literatures.  Results: 75% of the participants chose” Agree and strongly agree”, supporting the hypothesis that MDT  meetings ensure an effective and up-to- date management guidelines. This means that the risk of not  discussing a cancer patient cannot be neglected any longer. So the hypothesis statement (H0) is rejected and the alternative statement (Ha) is accepted. Conclusions: The majority of participants saw the value in the MDT process and expressed support for its implementation locally and nationally; however, feedback about the most appropriate format is yet to be established. The clinicians identified the need for agreed standards in MDT performance

scholarly journals Impact on Clinical Decision Making of Next-Generation Sequencing in Pediatric Epilepsy in a Tertiary Epilepsy Referral Center

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes Hoelz ◽  
Christian Herdl ◽  
Lucia Gerstl ◽  
Moritz Tacke ◽  
Katharina Vill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Clinical Management ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Pediatric Epilepsy ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Generation Sequencing

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.

Klinischer Nutzen der Flüssigkeitsbiopsie beim uvealen Melanom

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ira Seibel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Liquid Biopsy ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Noninvasive Biomarker ◽  
Biopsy Methods ◽  
Disease Understanding ◽  
Made In

In the era of precision oncology, major strides are being made to use individual tumor information for clinical decision-making. Differing from traditional biopsy methods, the emerging practice of liquid biopsy provides a minimally invasive way of obtaining tumor cells and derived molecules. Liquid biopsy provides a means to detect and monitor disease progression, recurrence, and treatment response in a noninvasive way, and to potentially complement classical biopsy. Uveal melanoma (UM) is a unique malignancy, with diagnosis heavily reliant on imaging, few repeat biopsies, and a high rate of metastasis, which occurs hematogenously and often many years after diagnosis. In this disease setting, a noninvasive biomarker to detect, monitor, and study the disease in real time could lead to better disease understanding and patient care. While advances have been made in the detection of tumor-disseminated components, sensitivity and specificity remain important challenges. Ambiguity remains in how to interpret current findings and in how liquid biopsy can have a place in clinical practice. Related publications in UM are few compared to other cancers, but with further studies we may be able to uncover more about the biology of disseminated molecules and the mechanisms involved in the progression to metastasis.

scholarly journals Systematic discovery of gene fusions in pediatric cancer by integrating RNA-seq and WGS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ianthe A.E.M. van Belzen ◽  
Casey Cai ◽  
Marc van Tuil ◽  
Shashi Badloe ◽  
Eric Strengman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pediatric Cancer ◽  
Copy Number ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Specific Gene ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Gene Fusions ◽  
Rna Seq ◽  
High Confidence

Background Gene fusions are important cancer drivers in pediatric cancer and their accurate detection is essential for diagnosis and treatment. Clinical decision-making requires high confidence and precision of detection. Recent developments show RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is promising for genome-wide detection of fusion products, but hindered by many false positives that require extensive manual curation and impede discovery of pathogenic fusions. Results We developed Fusion-sq to detect tumor-specific gene fusions by integrating and 'fusing' evidence from RNA-seq and whole genome sequencing (WGS) using intron-exon gene structure. In a pediatric pan-cancer cohort of 130 patients, we identified 165 high confidence tumor-specific gene fusions and their underlying structural variants (SVs). This includes all clinically relevant fusions known to be present in this cohort (30 patients). Fusion-sq distinguishes healthy-occurring from tumor-specific fusions, and resolves fusions in amplified regions and copy number unstable genomes. A high gene fusion burden is associated with copy number instability. We identified 27 potentially pathogenic fusions involving oncogenes or tumor-suppressor genes characterised by underlying SVs or expression changes indicative of activating or disruptive effects. Conclusions Our results indicate how clinically relevant and potentially pathogenic gene fusions can be identified and their functional effects investigated by combining WGS and RNA-seq. Integrating RNA fusion predictions with underlying SVs advances fusion detection beyond extensive manual filtering. Taken together, we developed a method for identifying candidate fusions that is suitable for precision oncology applications. Our method provides multi-omics evidence for assessing the pathogenicity of tumor-specific fusions for future clinical decision making.

Biomarkers in paediatric heart failure: is there value?

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 1469-1472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Y. Lin
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Blood Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Serum Biomarkers ◽  
Genetic Profile ◽  
Imaging Characteristic ◽  
Diagnosis And Prognosis ◽  
Potential Benefits

AbstractA biomarker is any measurable, surrogate characteristic, which reflects either the presence or the absence of a disease state. This can be a blood test, an imaging characteristic, an exercise parameter, and even a genetic profile. Serum biomarkers are particularly attractive in that their cost to the patient is relatively low in terms of money, time, risk, and ease of obtaining a sample. The potential benefits of a good biomarker are manifold. This manuscript will review serum biomarkers of proposed utility in paediatric heart failure, especially with respect to their ability to aid clinical decision making, diagnosis, and prognosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document