Y Bombard1, L Rozmovits2, M Trudeau3, N B Leighl4, K Deal5, D A Marshall6. 1. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON. 2. Independent qualitative researcher. 3. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON. 4. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ; Division of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON. 5. McMaster University, DeGroote School of Business, Hamilton, ON. 6. McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON; and Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Genomic information is increasingly being used to personalize health care. One example is gene expression profiling (gep) tests, which estimate recurrence risk to inform chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer. Recently, gep tests were publicly funded in Ontario. We explored the perceived utility of gep tests, focusing on the factors influencing their use and value in treatment decision-making by patients and oncologists. METHODS: We conducted interviews with oncologists (n = 14) and interviews and a focus group with early-stage breast cancer patients (n = 28) who underwent gep testing. Both groups were recruited through oncology clinics in Ontario. Data were analyzed using the content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: Narratives from patients and oncologists provided insights into various factors facilitating and restricting access to gep. First, oncologists are positioned as gatekeepers of gep, providing access in medically appropriate cases. However, varying perceptions of appropriateness led to perceived inequities in access and negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. Second, media attention facilitated patient awareness of gep, but also complicated gatekeeping. Third, the dedicated administration attached to gep was burdensome and led to long waits for results and also to increased patient anxiety and delayed treatment. Collectively, because of barriers to access, those factors inadvertently heightened the perceived value of gep for patients relative to other prognostic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Our study delineates the factors facilitating and restricting access to gep, and highlights the roles of media and organization of services in the perceived value and utilization of gep. The results identify a need for administrative changes and practice guidelines to support streamlined and standardized use of gep tests.
UNLABELLED: Genomic information is increasingly being used to personalize health care. One example is gene expression profiling (gep) tests, which estimate recurrence risk to inform chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer. Recently, gep tests were publicly funded in Ontario. We explored the perceived utility of gep tests, focusing on the factors influencing their use and value in treatment decision-making by patients and oncologists. METHODS: We conducted interviews with oncologists (n = 14) and interviews and a focus group with early-stage breast cancerpatients (n = 28) who underwent gep testing. Both groups were recruited through oncology clinics in Ontario. Data were analyzed using the content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: Narratives from patients and oncologists provided insights into various factors facilitating and restricting access to gep. First, oncologists are positioned as gatekeepers of gep, providing access in medically appropriate cases. However, varying perceptions of appropriateness led to perceived inequities in access and negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. Second, media attention facilitated patient awareness of gep, but also complicated gatekeeping. Third, the dedicated administration attached to gep was burdensome and led to long waits for results and also to increased patientanxiety and delayed treatment. Collectively, because of barriers to access, those factors inadvertently heightened the perceived value of gep for patients relative to other prognostic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Our study delineates the factors facilitating and restricting access to gep, and highlights the roles of media and organization of services in the perceived value and utilization of gep. The results identify a need for administrative changes and practice guidelines to support streamlined and standardized use of gep tests.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gene expression profiling; access; breast cancer; decision-making; genomics; health care providers; patient perceptions; personalized medicine; perspectives; risk recurrence
Authors: Lida Mina; Sharon E Soule; Sunil Badve; Fredrick L Baehner; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Drew Watson; Mei-Lan Liu; George W Sledge; Steve Shak; Kathy D Miller Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-10-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Xiao-Jun Ma; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Wilson Wang; Li Ding; Dennis C Sgroi; Richard A Bender; C Kent Osborne; D Craig Allred; Mark G Erlander Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Luigi Marchionni; Renee F Wilson; Spyridon S Marinopoulos; Antonio C Wolff; Giovanni Parmigiani; Eric B Bass; Steven N Goodman Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2007-12
Authors: Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christine B Weldon; Julia R Trosman; William J Gradishar; Al B Benson; Julian C Schink Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Marc Buyse; Sherene Loi; Laura van't Veer; Giuseppe Viale; Mauro Delorenzi; Annuska M Glas; Mahasti Saghatchian d'Assignies; Jonas Bergh; Rosette Lidereau; Paul Ellis; Adrian Harris; Jan Bogaerts; Patrick Therasse; Arno Floore; Mohamed Amakrane; Fanny Piette; Emiel Rutgers; Christos Sotiriou; Fatima Cardoso; Martine J Piccart Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Fiona A Miller; Paul Krueger; Robert J Christensen; Catherine Ahern; Ronald F Carter; Suzanne Kamel-Reid Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Michael P Douglas; Allison W Kurian; R Kate Kelley; Patricia A Deverka; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Susan Garfeld; Michael P Douglas; Karen V MacDonald; Deborah A Marshall; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Per Med Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Michael P Douglas; Patricia A Deverka; John B Watkins; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.725