Ilana B Solomon1, Sarah McGraw2, Jenny Shen3, Adem Albayrak4, Gil Alterovitz5,6, Melanie Davies7, Catherine Del Vecchio Fitz4, Rachel A Freedman5,8, Lisa N Lopez3, Lynette M Sholl5,9, Eliezer Van Allen5,8,10, Joanne Mortimer3, Marwan Fakih3, Sumanta Pal3, Karen L Reckamp3, Yuan Yuan3, Stacy W Gray3. 1. USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 2. The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY. 3. Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA. 4. Health Catalyst, Salt Lake City, UT. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 6. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Boston Children's' Hospital, Boston; and Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. 7. Department of Informatics and Analytics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 9. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 10. The Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence-based somatic and germline sequencing has transformed cancer care and improves patient outcomes. However, patients' low genetic literacy and misunderstanding of their own genomic results poses a threat to the realization of precision oncology. To optimize patient genomic comprehension, we developed a Web-based, patient-directed, genomic sequencing education and return-of-results tool, HOPE-Genomics. METHODS: The HOPE-Genomics prototype included somatic and germline sequencing results, embedded multimedia genomic education, and interactive features (eg, request for genetic counseling). Between January and April 2018, we elicited feedback on tool usability and comprehensiveness through participant surveys, 4 focus groups of patients with cancer and their family members, and 3 provider focus groups (comprising 8 patients, 5 family members, and 19 providers). RESULTS: We identified themes in patient/family tool-related responses, including the desire to view a patient-friendly report, a desire to receive multiple types of genomic information (eg, prognostic and uncertain), high acceptability of report content, and interest in tool-enabled access to genetic counseling. Major themes from the clinician focus groups included believing the tool could help patients formulate questions and facilitate patients' communication of results to family members. However, there were diverse responses from all participants in terms of tool implementation (ie, timing and nature of report release). Some participants preferred report release before meeting with the provider, and others preferred it during the appointment. Additionally, some clinicians were concerned about providing prognostic and treatment information through the tool. CONCLUSION: There was high acceptability and interest from patients, family members, and providers in a patient-directed genomics report. Future work will determine whether direct-to-patient reporting of genomic results improves patient knowledge, care engagement, and compliance with genomically guided interventions.
PURPOSE: Evidence-based somatic and germline sequencing has transformed cancer care and improves patient outcomes. However, patients' low genetic literacy and misunderstanding of their own genomic results poses a threat to the realization of precision oncology. To optimize patient genomic comprehension, we developed a Web-based, patient-directed, genomic sequencing education and return-of-results tool, HOPE-Genomics. METHODS: The HOPE-Genomics prototype included somatic and germline sequencing results, embedded multimedia genomic education, and interactive features (eg, request for genetic counseling). Between January and April 2018, we elicited feedback on tool usability and comprehensiveness through participant surveys, 4 focus groups of patients with cancer and their family members, and 3 provider focus groups (comprising 8 patients, 5 family members, and 19 providers). RESULTS: We identified themes in patient/family tool-related responses, including the desire to view a patient-friendly report, a desire to receive multiple types of genomic information (eg, prognostic and uncertain), high acceptability of report content, and interest in tool-enabled access to genetic counseling. Major themes from the clinician focus groups included believing the tool could help patients formulate questions and facilitate patients' communication of results to family members. However, there were diverse responses from all participants in terms of tool implementation (ie, timing and nature of report release). Some participants preferred report release before meeting with the provider, and others preferred it during the appointment. Additionally, some clinicians were concerned about providing prognostic and treatment information through the tool. CONCLUSION: There was high acceptability and interest from patients, family members, and providers in a patient-directed genomics report. Future work will determine whether direct-to-patient reporting of genomic results improves patient knowledge, care engagement, and compliance with genomically guided interventions.
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Elyse Shuk; Margaux C Genoff; Vivian M Rodríguez; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Annette O'Connor; Dawn Stacey; Robert Volk; Adrian Edwards; Angela Coulter; Richard Thomson; Alexandra Barratt; Michael Barry; Steven Bernstein; Phyllis Butow; Aileen Clarke; Vikki Entwistle; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Nora Moumjid; Al Mulley; Cornelia Ruland; Karen Sepucha; Alan Sykes; Tim Whelan Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-08-14
Authors: Phillip S Blanchette; Anna Spreafico; Fiona A Miller; Kelvin Chan; Jessica Bytautas; Steve Kang; Philippe L Bedard; Andrea Eisen; Larissa Potanina; Jack Holland; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; John D McPherson; Albiruni R Razak; Lillian L Siu Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Katherine Hicks-Courant; Christopher S Lathan; Levi Garraway; Elyse R Park; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Joy S Westerman; Elyse Shuk; Jennifer L Hay; Chasity Walters; Elena Elkin; Corinna Bertelsen; Jessica Cho; Bobby Daly; Ayca Gucalp; Andrew D Seidman; Marjorie G Zauderer; Andrew S Epstein; Mark G Kris Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Kathryn I Pollak; Catherine Rehder; Adam H Buchanan; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer H Crow; Michael Datto Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Elyse R Park; Julie Najita; Yolanda Martins; Lara Traeger; Elizabeth Bair; Joshua Gagne; Judy Garber; Pasi A Jänne; Neal Lindeman; Carol Lowenstein; Nelly Oliver; Lynette Sholl; Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Sam Wood; Levi Garraway; Steven Joffe Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Timothy R Rebbeck; John F P Bridges; Jennifer W Mack; Stacy W Gray; Jeffrey M Trent; Suzanne George; Norah L Crossnohere; Electra D Paskett; Corrie A Painter; Nikhil Wagle; Miria Kano; Patricia Nez Henderson; Jeffrey A Henderson; Shiraz I Mishra; Cheryl L Willman; Andrew L Sussman Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2022-04-15