BACKGROUND: Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians. METHODS: Surveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.
BACKGROUND: Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians. METHODS: Surveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.
Authors: Kelly E Ormond; Matthew T Wheeler; Louanne Hudgins; Teri E Klein; Atul J Butte; Russ B Altman; Euan A Ashley; Henry T Greely Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Ming K Lee; Christopher C Pennil; Alex S Nord; Anne M Thornton; Wendy Roeb; Kathy J Agnew; Sunday M Stray; Anneka Wickramanayake; Barbara Norquist; Kathryn P Pennington; Rochelle L Garcia; Mary-Claire King; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J Vos; J C Oosterwijk; E Gómez-García; F H Menko; A M Jansen; R D Stoel; C J van Asperen; A Tibben; A M Stiggelbout Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Muin J Khoury; Steven B Clauser; Andrew N Freedman; Elizabeth M Gillanders; Russ E Glasgow; William M P Klein; Sheri D Schully Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J Macdonald; Julie O Culver; Carin R Huizenga; Robert J Morgan; Gwen C Uman; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Filipa Lynce; Kristi D Graves; Lina Jandorf; Charite Ricker; Eida Castro; Laura Moreno; Bianca Augusto; Laura Fejerman; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Ryan Pysar; Courtney K Wallingford; Jackie Boyle; Scott B Campbell; Lisa Eckstein; Rebekah McWhirter; Bronwyn Terrill; Chris Jacobs; Aideen M McInerney-Leo Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Bita Nehoray; Thomas P Slavin; Can-Lan Sun; Karen Hurley; Elisabeth King; Kevin K Tsang; Aleck Cervantes; Janet V Mokhnatkin; Sharon Sand; Rosa Mejia; Anne Reb; Goli Samimi; Stacy Gray; Kathleen R Blazer; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 2.717
Authors: Sarah A Walser; Allison Werner-Lin; Rebecca Mueller; Victoria A Miller; Sawona Biswas; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: Per Med Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Erin O'Leary; Daniela Iacoboni; Jennifer Holle; Scott T Michalski; Edward D Esplin; Shan Yang; Karen Ouyang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.344