Barrie Cohen1, Michael Roth1, Jonathan M Marron2, Stacy W Gray3, David S Geller4, Bang Hoang4, Richard Gorlick1,5, Katherine A Janeway2, Jonathan Gill6. 1. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Blood & Marrow Cell Transplantation, Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. 2. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center and Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. 5. Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. 6. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Blood & Marrow Cell Transplantation, Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. jgill@montefiore.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed and refractory solid tumors have a poor prognosis. Recent advances in genomic technology have made it feasible to screen tumors for actionable mutations, with the anticipation that this may provide benefit to patients. METHODS: Pediatric oncologists were emailed an anonymous 34-question survey assessing their willingness to offer a rebiopsy to patients with relapsed disease for the purpose of tumor genomic profiling. They were presented with two scenarios evaluating morbidity and invasiveness of the procedures using the clinical examples of medulloblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. RESULTS: A total of 195 pediatric oncologists responded to the questionnaire. Morbidity and invasiveness of the procedure demonstrated significant differences in provider willingness to refer their patients for rebiopsy. The pretest probability was a major variable influencing provider willingness to offer a rebiopsy. Respondents were more likely to offer a rebiopsy if the likelihood was high that the results would have an impact on clinical management than if the biopsy was for histologic confirmation alone (mean 89 vs. 56 %; p = 0.017). Compared with the rate of a rebiopsy for histologic confirmation, significantly fewer providers were willing to offer a rebiopsy if they were led to believe the likelihood of finding an actionable mutation was low (mean 45 vs. 56 %; p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: The scenario showed that the pretest probability of finding an actionable mutation was influential in determining provider willingness to offer a rebiopsy for the purpose of tumor genomic profiling. Further research is warranted to evaluate the benefit of tumor genomic profiling in terms of patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Patients with relapsed and refractory solid tumors have a poor prognosis. Recent advances in genomic technology have made it feasible to screen tumors for actionable mutations, with the anticipation that this may provide benefit to patients. METHODS: Pediatric oncologists were emailed an anonymous 34-question survey assessing their willingness to offer a rebiopsy to patients with relapsed disease for the purpose of tumor genomic profiling. They were presented with two scenarios evaluating morbidity and invasiveness of the procedures using the clinical examples of medulloblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. RESULTS: A total of 195 pediatric oncologists responded to the questionnaire. Morbidity and invasiveness of the procedure demonstrated significant differences in provider willingness to refer their patients for rebiopsy. The pretest probability was a major variable influencing provider willingness to offer a rebiopsy. Respondents were more likely to offer a rebiopsy if the likelihood was high that the results would have an impact on clinical management than if the biopsy was for histologic confirmation alone (mean 89 vs. 56 %; p = 0.017). Compared with the rate of a rebiopsy for histologic confirmation, significantly fewer providers were willing to offer a rebiopsy if they were led to believe the likelihood of finding an actionable mutation was low (mean 45 vs. 56 %; p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: The scenario showed that the pretest probability of finding an actionable mutation was influential in determining provider willingness to offer a rebiopsy for the purpose of tumor genomic profiling. Further research is warranted to evaluate the benefit of tumor genomic profiling in terms of patient outcomes.
Authors: Ben Tran; Janet E Dancey; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; John D McPherson; Philippe L Bedard; Andrew M K Brown; Tong Zhang; Patricia Shaw; Nicole Onetto; Lincoln Stein; Thomas J Hudson; Benjamin G Neel; Lillian L Siu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou; Sijin Wen; David S Hong; Jennifer J Wheler; Gerald S Falchook; Siqing Fu; Sarina Piha-Paul; Aung Naing; Filip Janku; Kenneth Aldape; Yang Ye; Razelle Kurzrock; Donald Berry Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Tobey J MacDonald; Gilbert Vezina; Clinton F Stewart; David Turner; Christopher R Pierson; Lu Chen; Ian F Pollack; Amar Gajjar; Mark W Kieran Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Sarah E S Leary; Amy W Wozniak; Catherine A Billups; Jianrong Wu; Valerie McPherson; Michael D Neel; Bhaskar N Rao; Najat C Daw Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Malcolm A Smith; Nita L Seibel; Sean F Altekruse; Lynn A G Ries; Danielle L Melbert; Maura O'Leary; Franklin O Smith; Gregory H Reaman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey Peppercorn; Iuliana Shapira; Deborah Collyar; Teresa Deshields; Nancy Lin; Ian Krop; Hans Grunwald; Paula Friedman; Ann H Partridge; Richard L Schilsky; Monica M Bertagnolli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Jeffrey Gagan; Ethan Cerami; Angel M Cronin; Hajime Uno; Nelly Oliver; Carol Lowenstein; Ruth Lederman; Anna Revette; Aaron Suarez; Charlotte Lee; Jordan Bryan; Lynette Sholl; Eliezer M Van Allen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jacqueline D Hunter; Eden G Robertson; Kate Hetherington; David S Ziegler; Glenn M Marshall; Judy Kirk; Jonathan M Marron; Avram E Denburg; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Meera Warby; Katherine M Tucker; Brittany M Lee; Tracey A O'Brien; Claire E Wakefield Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-08-18
Authors: Sally L George; Elisa Izquierdo; James Campbell; Eleni Koutroumanidou; Paula Proszek; Sabri Jamal; Deborah Hughes; Lina Yuan; Lynley V Marshall; Fernando Carceller; Julia C Chisholm; Sucheta Vaidya; Henry Mandeville; Paola Angelini; Ajla Wasti; Tomas Bexelius; Khin Thway; Susanne A Gatz; Matthew Clarke; Bissan Al-Lazikani; Giuseppe Barone; John Anderson; Deborah A Tweddle; David Gonzalez; Brian A Walker; Jack Barton; Sarita Depani; Jessica Eze; Saira W Ahmed; Lucas Moreno; Andrew Pearson; Janet Shipley; Chris Jones; Darren Hargrave; Thomas S Jacques; Michael Hubank; Louis Chesler Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Alise K Murray; Rose B McGee; Roya M Mostafavi; Xiaoqing Wang; Zhaohua Lu; Jessica M Valdez; Michael A Terao; Kim E Nichols Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 4.452