PURPOSE: To determine whether oncologists intended to change treatment as a result of tumor sequencing, and subsequently, whether patients experienced an alteration of clinical management or derived clinical benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective survey of oncologists referring adult patients with rare, advanced, or refractory cancer to the Michigan Oncology Sequencing program was conducted from June 2014 to March 2015 to assess the use of and intent to disclose sequencing findings. Oncologists' responses were compared with the referred patients' self-reported survey responses, and a content analysis of disclosure documented in the medical record was performed. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively to determine if clinical management was informed or changed by sequencing results. RESULTS: Oncologists (response rate, 93%) referring 112 consecutive patients were surveyed. Medical records of patients were reviewed for changes in clinical management on the basis of sequencing findings. Oncologists intended to change the treatment of 22% of patients (n = 24) on the basis of sequencing findings. Of these patients, 37.5% (n = 9) had an actual change in clinical management. Thirty-four patients with postsequencing survey data reported that a results disclosure discussion did not occur, despite documentation of disclosure by the physician in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that many oncologists view next-generation sequencing results to be potentially valuable in directing subsequent therapy for their patients; however, barriers in communicating results to patients and implementing them in clinical management remain.
PURPOSE: To determine whether oncologists intended to change treatment as a result of tumor sequencing, and subsequently, whether patients experienced an alteration of clinical management or derived clinical benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective survey of oncologists referring adult patients with rare, advanced, or refractory cancer to the Michigan Oncology Sequencing program was conducted from June 2014 to March 2015 to assess the use of and intent to disclose sequencing findings. Oncologists' responses were compared with the referred patients' self-reported survey responses, and a content analysis of disclosure documented in the medical record was performed. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively to determine if clinical management was informed or changed by sequencing results. RESULTS: Oncologists (response rate, 93%) referring 112 consecutive patients were surveyed. Medical records of patients were reviewed for changes in clinical management on the basis of sequencing findings. Oncologists intended to change the treatment of 22% of patients (n = 24) on the basis of sequencing findings. Of these patients, 37.5% (n = 9) had an actual change in clinical management. Thirty-four patients with postsequencing survey data reported that a results disclosure discussion did not occur, despite documentation of disclosure by the physician in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that many oncologists view next-generation sequencing results to be potentially valuable in directing subsequent therapy for their patients; however, barriers in communicating results to patients and implementing them in clinical management remain.
Authors: Funda Meric-Bernstam; Amber Johnson; Vijaykumar Holla; Ann Marie Bailey; Lauren Brusco; Ken Chen; Mark Routbort; Keyur P Patel; Jia Zeng; Scott Kopetz; Michael A Davies; Sarina A Piha-Paul; David S Hong; Agda Karina Eterovic; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Russell Broaddus; Elmer V Bernstam; Kenna R Shaw; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anne Townsend; Shelin Adam; Patricia H Birch; Zoe Lohn; Francois Rousseau; Jan M Friedman Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Sameek Roychowdhury; Matthew K Iyer; Dan R Robinson; Robert J Lonigro; Yi-Mi Wu; Xuhong Cao; Shanker Kalyana-Sundaram; Lee Sam; O Alejandro Balbin; Michael J Quist; Terrence Barrette; Jessica Everett; Javed Siddiqui; Lakshmi P Kunju; Nora Navone; John C Araujo; Patricia Troncoso; Christopher J Logothetis; Jeffrey W Innis; David C Smith; Christopher D Lao; Scott Y Kim; J Scott Roberts; Stephen B Gruber; Kenneth J Pienta; Moshe Talpaz; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Anna Middleton; Katherine I Morley; Eugene Bragin; Helen V Firth; Matthew E Hurles; Caroline F Wright; Michael Parker Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Pam K Mangat; Susan Halabi; Suanna S Bruinooge; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Ajjai Alva; Katherine A Janeway; Philip J Stella; Emile Voest; Kathleen J Yost; Jane Perlmutter; Navin Pinto; Edward S Kim; Richard L Schilsky Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-07-11
Authors: Maren T Scheuner; Jane Peredo; Judith Benkendorf; Bruce Bowdish; Gerald Feldman; Lynn Fleisher; John J Mulvihill; Michael Watson; Gail E Herman; James Evans Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Daniel L Hertz; Andrew Glatz; Amy L Pasternak; Robert J Lonigro; Pankaj Vats; Yi-Mi Wu; Bailey Anderson; Erica Rabban; Erika Mora; Kevin Frank; Dan R Robinson; Rajen J Mody; Arul Chinnaiyan Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-07-23
Authors: Jeanna M McCuaig; Sarah E Ferguson; Danielle Vicus; Karen Ott; Tracy L Stockley; Raymond H Kim; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 2.857