Literature DB >> 24911662

Cancer patients acceptance, understanding, and willingness-to-pay for pharmacogenomic testing.

Sinead Cuffe1, Henrique Hon, Xin Qiu, Kimberly Tobros, Chung-Kwun Amy Wong, Bradley De Souza, Graham McFarlane, Sohaib Masroor, Abul K Azad, Ekta Hasani, Natalie Rozanec, Natasha Leighl, Shabbir Alibhai, Wei Xu, Amalia M Issa, Geoffrey Liu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics is gaining increasing importance in the therapeutics of cancer; yet, there is little knowledge of cancer patients' attitudes toward the use of pharmacogenomic testing in clinical practice. We carried out this study to explore cancer patients' acceptance, understanding, and willingness-to-pay for pharmacogenomic testing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A broad cross-section of gastrointestinal, lung, breast, and other cancer patients were interviewed in terms of their acceptance of pharmacogenomic testing using hypothetical time, efficacy, and toxicity trade-off and willingness-to-pay scenarios.
RESULTS: Among the 96% of 123 adjuvant patients accepting chemotherapy under optimal conditions, 99% wanted pharmacogenomic testing that could identify a subset of patients benefiting from chemotherapy, accepting median incurred costs of $2000 (range $0-25,000) and turnaround time for test results of 16 days (range 0-90 days). Among the 97% of 121 metastatic patients accepting chemotherapy, 97.4% wanted pharmacogenomic testing that could detect the risk of severe toxicity, accepting median incurred costs of $1000 (range $0-10,000) and turnaround time for results of 14 days (range 1-90 days). The majority of patients wanted to be involved in decision-making on pharmacogenomic testing; however, one in five patients lacked a basic understanding of pharmacogenomic testing.
CONCLUSION: Among cancer patients willing to undergo chemotherapy, almost all wanted pharmacogenomic testing and were willing-to-pay for it, waiting several weeks for results. Although patients had a strong desire to be involved in decision-making on pharmacogenomic testing, a considerable proportion lacked the necessary knowledge to make informed choices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24911662     DOI: 10.1097/FPC.0000000000000061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacogenet Genomics        ISSN: 1744-6872            Impact factor:   2.089


  11 in total

1.  Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.

Authors:  Ana P M Pinheiro; Rachel H Pocock; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Suresh S Ramalingam; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Colorectal Cancer Survivors' Receptivity toward Genomic Testing and Targeted Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs to Prevent Cancer Recurrence.

Authors:  Denalee M O'Malley; Cindy K Blair; Alissa Greenbaum; Charles L Wiggins; Ashwani Rajput; Vi K Chiu; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-01-08

3.  Reflex ROS1 IHC Screening with FISH Confirmation for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer-A Cost-Efficient Strategy in a Public Healthcare System.

Authors:  Maisam Makarem; Doreen A Ezeife; Adam C Smith; Janice J N Li; Jennifer H Law; Ming-Sound Tsao; Natasha B Leighl
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-08-25       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  The price of whole-genome sequencing may be decreasing, but who will be sequenced?

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Karen V MacDonald; Jill Oliver Robinson; Lisa F Barcellos; Milena Gianfrancesco; Monica Helm; Amy McGuire; Robert C Green; Michael P Douglas; Michael A Goldman; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  Allocating healthcare resources to genomic testing in Canada: latest evidence and current challenges.

Authors:  Deirdre Weymann; Nick Dragojlovic; Samantha Pollard; Dean A Regier
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-07-05

6.  A cross-sectional observation study regarding patients and their physician willingness to wait for driver mutation report in nonsmall-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Amit Joshi; Vijay M Patil; Vanita Noronha; Joydeep Ghosh; Atanu Bhattacharjee; Kumar Prabhash
Journal:  Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

7.  The PiGeOn project: protocol for a longitudinal study examining psychosocial, behavioural and ethical issues and outcomes in cancer tumour genomic profiling.

Authors:  Megan Best; Ainsley J Newson; Bettina Meiser; Ilona Juraskova; David Goldstein; Kathy Tucker; Mandy L Ballinger; Dominique Hess; Timothy E Schlub; Barbara Biesecker; Richard Vines; Kate Vines; David Thomas; Mary-Anne Young; Jacqueline Savard; Chris Jacobs; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  The PiGeOn project: protocol of a longitudinal study examining psychosocial and ethical issues and outcomes in germline genomic sequencing for cancer.

Authors:  Megan Best; Ainsley J Newson; Bettina Meiser; Ilona Juraskova; David Goldstein; Kathy Tucker; Mandy L Ballinger; Dominique Hess; Timothy E Schlub; Barbara Biesecker; Richard Vines; Kate Vines; David Thomas; Mary-Anne Young; Jacqueline Savard; Chris Jacobs; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  My Cancer Genome: Evaluating an Educational Model to Introduce Patients and Caregivers to Precision Medicine Information.

Authors:  Sheila V Kusnoor; Taneya Y Koonce; Mia A Levy; Christine M Lovly; Helen M Naylor; Ingrid A Anderson; Christine M Micheel; Sheau-Chiann Chen; Fei Ye; Nunzia B Giuse
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2016-07-20

10.  The Avatar Acceptability Study: Survivor, Parent and Community Willingness to Use Patient-Derived Xenografts to Personalize Cancer Care.

Authors:  C E Wakefield; E L Doolan; J E Fardell; C Signorelli; V F Quinn; K M Tucker; A F Patenaude; G M Marshall; R B Lock; G Georgiou; R J Cohn
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 8.143

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.