Literature DB >> 25209923

Attitudes toward molecular testing for personalized cancer therapy.

Rafeek A Yusuf1, Deevakar Rogith, Shelly R A Hovick, Susan K Peterson, Allison M Burton-Chase, Bryan M Fellman, Yisheng Li, Carolyn McKinney, Elmer V Bernstam, Funda Meric-Bernstam.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study assessed attitudes of breast cancer patients toward molecular testing for personalized therapy and research.
METHODS: A questionnaire was given to female breast cancer patients presenting to a cancer center. Associations between demographic and clinical variables and attitudes toward molecular testing were evaluated.
RESULTS: Three hundred eight patients were approached, and 100 completed the questionnaire (a 32% response rate). Most participants were willing to undergo molecular testing to assist in the selection of approved drugs (81%) and experimental therapy (59%) if testing was covered by insurance. Most participants were white (71%). Even if testing was financially covered, nonwhite participants were less willing to undergo molecular testing for the selection of approved drugs (54% of nonwhites vs 90% of whites, odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, P = .0004) or experimental drugs (35% vs 68%, OR = 0.26, P = .0072). Most participants (75%) were willing to undergo a biopsy to guide therapy, and 46% were willing to undergo research biopsies. Nonwhite participants were less willing to undergo research biopsies (17% vs 55%, OR = 0.17, P = .0033). Most participants wanted to be informed when research results had implications for treatment (91%), new cancer risk (90%), and other preventable/treatable diseases (87%).
CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were willing to undergo molecular testing and minimally invasive procedures to guide approved or experimental therapy. There were significant differences in attitudes toward molecular testing between racial groups; nonwhites were less willing to undergo testing even if the results would guide their own therapy. Novel approaches are needed to prevent disparities in the delivery of genomically informed care and to increase minority participation in biomarker-driven trials. Cancer 2015;121:243-50.
© 2014 American Cancer Society. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarkers; disparities; molecular testing; personalized cancer therapy; questionnaire; survey

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25209923      PMCID: PMC4293219          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28966

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  31 in total

1.  The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think?

Authors:  Dave Wendler; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-08

2.  Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think?

Authors:  Asa Kettis-Lindblad; Lena Ring; Eva Viberth; Mats G Hansson
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 3.367

3.  Barriers to the participation of African-American patients with cancer in clinical trials: a pilot study.

Authors:  Anjali S Advani; Benjamin Atkeson; Carrie L Brown; Bercedis L Peterson; Laura Fish; Jeffrey L Johnson; Jon P Gockerman; Marc Gautier
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination.

Authors:  David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Bradford W Hesse; Robert T Croyle; Gordon Willis; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; K V Viswanath; Neil Weinstein; Sara Alden
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct

5.  Attitudes towards biomedical use of tissue sample collections, consent, and biobanks among Finns.

Authors:  Aaro Tupasela; Sinikka Sihvo; Karolna Snell; Pa Jallinoja; Arja R Aro; Elina Hemminki
Journal:  Scand J Public Health       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Oncology physician and nurse practices and attitudes regarding offering clinical trial results to study participants.

Authors:  Ann H Partridge; Nadia Hackett; Emily Blood; Rebecca Gelman; Steven Joffe; Susan Bauer-Wu; Katherine Knudsen; Karen Emmons; Deborah Collyar; Richard L Schilsky; Eric P Winer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-04-21       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Public attitudes to the storage of blood left over from routine general practice tests and its use in research.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Alex Doney; David Leiman
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2009-01

8.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: why are patients not participating?

Authors:  Margaret M Byrne; Stacey L Tannenbaum; Stefan Glück; Judith Hurley; Michael Antoni
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study.

Authors:  David Kaufman; Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  20 in total

1.  Active Disclosure of Secondary Germline Findings to Deceased Research Participants' Personal Representatives: Process and Outcomes.

Authors:  Molly Daniels; Chetna Wathoo; Lauren Brusco; Karen H Lu; Kenna Shaw; Ecaterina E Ileana Dumbrava; Banu Arun; Louise Strong; Jennifer K Litton; Karina Eterovic; Ugur Aytac; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills; Ken Chen; Funda Meric-Bernstam
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2017-10-31

2.  Text mining for precision medicine: automating disease-mutation relationship extraction from biomedical literature.

Authors:  Ayush Singhal; Michael Simmons; Zhiyong Lu
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Interest and Attitudes of Patients With Advanced Cancer With Regard to Secondary Germline Findings From Tumor Genomic Profiling.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Elyse Shuk; Margaux C Genoff; Vivian M Rodríguez; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.840

4.  Young Adult Female Cancer Survivors' Concerns About Future Children's Health and Genetic Risk.

Authors:  Nirupa Jaya Raghunathan; Catherine Benedict; Bridgette Thom; Danielle Novetsky Friedman; Joanne Frankel Kelvin
Journal:  J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 2.223

5.  Patient knowledge and information-seeking about personalized cancer therapy.

Authors:  Deevakar Rogith; Rafeek A Yusuf; Shelley R Hovick; Bryan M Fellman; Susan K Peterson; Allison M Burton-Chase; Yisheng Li; Elmer V Bernstam; Funda Meric-Bernstam
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 4.046

6.  Incidental germline variants in 1000 advanced cancers on a prospective somatic genomic profiling protocol.

Authors:  F Meric-Bernstam; L Brusco; M Daniels; C Wathoo; A M Bailey; L Strong; K Shaw; K Lu; Y Qi; H Zhao; H Lara-Guerra; J Litton; B Arun; A K Eterovic; U Aytac; M Routbort; V Subbiah; F Janku; M A Davies; S Kopetz; J Mendelsohn; G B Mills; K Chen
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Cancer-Related Internet Use and Online Social Networking Among Patients in an Early-Phase Clinical Trials Clinic at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Authors:  Goldy C George; Adrianna Buford; Kenneth Hess; Sarina A Piha-Paul; Ralph Zinner; Vivek Subbiah; Christina Hinojosa; Charles S Cleeland; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Elmer V Bernstam; David S Hong
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2018-12

8.  Application of the ConNECT Framework to Precision Health and Health Disparities.

Authors:  Usha Menon; Kimlin Ashing; Mei Wei Chang; Shannon M Christy; Katarina Friberg-Felsted; Virginia Gil Rivas; Clement K Gwede; Qian Lu; Cathy D Meade; Jamila Sly; Monica Wang; Betina Yanez; Karen Yeary; Jean C Yi; Kassandra I Alcaraz
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2019 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 2.381

9.  Does biomarker information impact breast cancer patients' preferences and physician recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy?

Authors:  Ann H Partridge; Karen Sepucha; Anne O'Neill; Kathy D Miller; Emily Baker; Chau T Dang; Donald W Northfelt; George W Sledge; Bryan P Schneider
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Decision-Making Preferences About Secondary Germline Findings That Arise From Tumor Genomic Profiling Among Patients With Advanced Cancers.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Elyse Shuk; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Vivian M Rodríguez; Joy Westerman; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2017-12-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.