Lynn G Dressler1, Allison M Deal2, Jai Patel3, Janell Markey2, Marcia Van Riper4, Howard L McLeod5. 1. Mission Health, Personalized Medicine Program, Fullerton Genetics Center, Asheville, NC 28803, USA. 2. University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. 3. Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA. 4. University of North Carolina, School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. 5. Moffit Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.
Abstract
AIM: The study aim was to understand physician experience and factors influencing the adoption of cancer pharmacogenomic (caPGx) testing by oncologists practicing in academic and nonacademic settings. METHOD: Anonymous paper surveys were distributed to oncologists practicing in North Carolina (USA). RESULTS: Although 98% of oncologists see promise in utilizing PGx tests in their practice, few were comfortable with their knowledge (33%) or interpreting test results (37%). At one site, the survey was not distributed due to clinician unfamiliarity with the term 'pharmacogenomics'. Compared with oncologists in academia, community oncologists were more likely to order the new Oncotype Dx™ test for colon cancer (33% vs 0; p = 0.0071), more likely to indicate future use of caPGx tests (94 vs 75%; p = 0.012) and less likely to have never ordered a caPGx test (2 vs 35%%; p < 0.001). Nearly every oncologist was interested in additional PGx education. CONCLUSION: A critical need exists to disseminate accurate and updated caPGx information to oncologists practicing in both academic and nonacademic settings.
AIM: The study aim was to understand physician experience and factors influencing the adoption of cancer pharmacogenomic (caPGx) testing by oncologists practicing in academic and nonacademic settings. METHOD: Anonymous paper surveys were distributed to oncologists practicing in North Carolina (USA). RESULTS: Although 98% of oncologists see promise in utilizing PGx tests in their practice, few were comfortable with their knowledge (33%) or interpreting test results (37%). At one site, the survey was not distributed due to clinician unfamiliarity with the term 'pharmacogenomics'. Compared with oncologists in academia, community oncologists were more likely to order the new Oncotype Dx™ test for colon cancer (33% vs 0; p = 0.0071), more likely to indicate future use of caPGx tests (94 vs 75%; p = 0.012) and less likely to have never ordered a caPGx test (2 vs 35%%; p < 0.001). Nearly every oncologist was interested in additional PGx education. CONCLUSION: A critical need exists to disseminate accurate and updated caPGx information to oncologists practicing in both academic and nonacademic settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer pharmacogenomics; diffusion theory; personalized medicine; pharmacogenetics
Authors: Lynn G Dressler; Allison M Deal; Kouros Owzar; Dorothy Watson; Katherine Donahue; Paula N Friedman; Mark J Ratain; Howard L McLeod Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Thomas M Schwedhelm; Judy R Rees; Tracy Onega; Ronnie J Zipkin; Andrew Schaefer; Maria O Celaya; Erika L Moen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 4.430