Literature DB >> 28140456

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

Ana P M Pinheiro1,2, Rachel H Pocock2, Jeffrey M Switchenko3, Margie D Dixon1,2, Walid L Shaib1,2, Suresh S Ramalingam1,2, Rebecca D Pentz1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing to inform treatment and clinical trial choices is now the standard of care for several types of cancer. However, no established guidelines exist for the type of information physicians should cover during discussions with the patient about the test or its results. The objectives of this study were to identify physician and patient preferences regarding information and who should communicate this information and how to inform guidelines for these conversations.
METHODS: Physicians and patients who participated in discussions regarding molecular testing were asked to choose 8 topics of most relevance out of a list of 18. The McNemar test was used to determine their top preferences. Patients were asked to identify what information they wanted to receive and who should inform them, and physicians were asked to identify the best aid to communication.
RESULTS: Sixty-six patients identified 12 preferred topics: the benefits of testing (88%), how testing determines treatment (88%), implications for family (71%), whether a test indicates the seriousness of disease (68%), purpose of the test (64%), incidental findings (56%), explanation of cancer genetics (53%), how the test is done (46%), limitations (44%), explanation of biomarker (42%), risks (42%), and uninformative results (38%). Physicians added cost (59%). Patients preferred receiving information about molecular testing from their nurse or physician (85%), and physicians preferred using a pamphlet (67%) to augment communication.
CONCLUSIONS: The topics identified as important to discuss can inform future guidelines and can contribute to effective communication regarding molecular testing. Cancer 2017;123:1610-1616.
© 2017 American Cancer Society. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; informed consent; molecular testing; patient preference

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28140456      PMCID: PMC5400669          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30494

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


  57 in total

1.  Why do patients want information if not to take part in decision making?

Authors:  Neil C Manson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results.

Authors:  J O'Daniel; S B Haga
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Receiving a diagnosis of cancer: the perceptions of patients.

Authors:  L Merriman; D J Perez; R McGee; A V Campbell
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  1997-08-08

Review 4.  Managing the ethical challenges of next-generation sequencing in genomic medicine.

Authors:  Angus J Clarke
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 4.291

5.  Cancer patients' information needs and information seeking behaviour: in depth interview study.

Authors:  G M Leydon; M Boulton; C Moynihan; A Jones; J Mossman; M Boudioni; K McPherson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-01

6.  Communicating prognosis to patients with metastatic disease: what do they really want to know?

Authors:  P N Butow; S Dowsett; R Hagerty; M H N Tattersall
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2001-09-07       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Disclosure of incidental findings in cancer genomic research: investigators' perceptions on obligations and barriers.

Authors:  E Kleiderman; D Avard; A Besso; S Ali-Khan; G Sauvageau; J Hébert
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  Informed consent for phase I studies: evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients.

Authors:  M Tomamichel; C Sessa; S Herzig; J de Jong; O Pagani; Y Willems; F Cavalli
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 32.976

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

Authors:  Sinead Cuffe; 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
Journal:  Pharmacogenet Genomics       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.089

10.  The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  8 in total

1.  Patient-centered engagement and symptom/toxicity monitoring in the new era of tumor next-generation sequencing and immunotherapy: The OncoTool and OncoPRO platforms.

Authors:  Betina Yanez; Laura C Bouchard; David Cella; Jeffrey A Sosman; Sheetal M Kircher; Nisha A Mohindra; Massimo Cristofanilli; Frank J Penedo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Understanding Immunotherapy Terminology: An Analysis of Provider-Patient Conversations.

Authors:  Shannon Blee; Bari Rosenberg; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Rachel Hianik; Mary Catherine Thomson; Margie Dixon; Mehmet Asim Bilen; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Immunomedicine       Date:  2021-09-02

3.  Participant Attitudes Toward an Intensive Trial of Multiple Biopsies, Multidimensional Molecular Analysis, and Reporting of Results in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Nicole M Kuderer; Kimberly A Burton; Sibel Blau; Francis Senecal; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Stephanie Parker; Elisabeth Mahen; David Veenstra; Josh J Carlson; Gary H Lyman; C Anthony Blau
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2017-08-16

4.  Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jennifer Ivanovich; Sarah Lyons; Barbara Biesecker; Rebecca Dresser; Ashley Elrick; Cindy Matsen; Melody Goodman
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Richard D Albrechtsen; Melody S Goodman; Jemar R Bather; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-09-25

Review 6.  Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer.

Authors:  Jeanna M McCuaig; Susan Randall Armel; Melanie Care; Alexandra Volenik; Raymond H Kim; Kelly A Metcalfe
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Physician Communication and Patient Understanding of Molecular Testing Terminology.

Authors:  Shannon M Blee; Rachel Pocock Shah; Ana P M Pinheiro; Jeffrey Switchenko; Margie Dixon; Taofeek K Owonikoko; Charles E Hill; Stephen M Szabo; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2021-08-24

Review 8.  How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: A scoping review.

Authors:  Claire Kim; Melissa J Armstrong; Whitney B Berta; Anna R Gagliardi
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-07-12       Impact factor: 3.377

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.