Alice Chen1, Keith Flaherty2, Peter J O'Dwyer3, Bruce Giantonio4, Donna M Marinucci5, Ju-Whei Lee6, Elda Railey7, Mary Lou Smith7, Carol White8, Barbara Conley1. 1. Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA. 3. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 5. College of Medicine, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. 6. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 7. Research Advocacy Network, Plano, TX. 8. CBWhite, Evanston, IL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify factors that may influence physician participation in tumor profiling studies and to assess the routine use of tumor profiling in clinical practice. METHODS: Physicians in the National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) were invited to participate in an electronic survey consisting of 73 questions related to participation in genomic profiling studies, tumor profiling practices and education during usual patient care, and physician background and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 8.9% (171 surveys returned of 1,931 sent). A majority of respondents practiced in academic medical centers (AMCs). Participation in NCI-MATCH increased workload and cost but resulted in increased professional satisfaction, confidence in treatment recommendation, and subsequent use of tumor profiling. Barriers to patient participation included length of wait time for results and lack of a therapeutic option from the testing. Physicians who worked in AMCs reported a higher use of tumor profiling than did those who worked in non-AMC settings (43% v 18%; P = .0009). Access to a molecular tumor board was perceived as valuable by 56%. The study identified a need for educational materials to guide both physicians and patients in the field of genomic profiling. CONCLUSION: Physicians who participate in NCI-MATCH perceive value to patient treatment that outweighs the additional effort required; survey results help identify barriers that may limit participation. The current findings have implications for the design of future genomic and other profiling studies.
PURPOSE: To identify factors that may influence physician participation in tumor profiling studies and to assess the routine use of tumor profiling in clinical practice. METHODS: Physicians in the National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) were invited to participate in an electronic survey consisting of 73 questions related to participation in genomic profiling studies, tumor profiling practices and education during usual patient care, and physician background and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 8.9% (171 surveys returned of 1,931 sent). A majority of respondents practiced in academic medical centers (AMCs). Participation in NCI-MATCH increased workload and cost but resulted in increased professional satisfaction, confidence in treatment recommendation, and subsequent use of tumor profiling. Barriers to patient participation included length of wait time for results and lack of a therapeutic option from the testing. Physicians who worked in AMCs reported a higher use of tumor profiling than did those who worked in non-AMC settings (43% v 18%; P = .0009). Access to a molecular tumor board was perceived as valuable by 56%. The study identified a need for educational materials to guide both physicians and patients in the field of genomic profiling. CONCLUSION: Physicians who participate in NCI-MATCH perceive value to patient treatment that outweighs the additional effort required; survey results help identify barriers that may limit participation. The current findings have implications for the design of future genomic and other profiling studies.
Authors: Chih-Jian Lih; Robin D Harrington; David J Sims; Kneshay N Harper; Courtney H Bouk; Vivekananda Datta; Jonathan Yau; Rajesh R Singh; Mark J Routbort; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Keyur P Patel; Geeta S Mantha; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Karyn Ronski; Zenta Walther; Karin E Finberg; Sandra Canosa; Hayley Robinson; Amelia Raymond; Long P Le; Lisa M McShane; Eric C Polley; Barbara A Conley; James H Doroshow; A John Iafrate; Jeffrey L Sklar; Stanley R Hamilton; P Mickey Williams Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Joseph D Khoury; Wei-Lien Wang; Victor G Prieto; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Neda Kalhor; Meera Hameed; Russell Broaddus; Stanley R Hamilton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ceara Tess Cunningham; Hude Quan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Tom Noseworthy; Cynthia A Beck; Elijah Dixon; Susan Samuel; William A Ghali; Lindsay L Sykes; Nathalie Jetté Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: David A Cook; Christopher M Wittich; Wendlyn L Daniels; Colin P West; Ann M Harris; Timothy J Beebe Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Keith T Flaherty; Robert Gray; Alice Chen; Shuli Li; David Patton; Stanley R Hamilton; Paul M Williams; Edith P Mitchell; A John Iafrate; Jeffrey Sklar; Lyndsay N Harris; Lisa M McShane; Larry V Rubinstein; David J Sims; Mark Routbort; Brent Coffey; Tony Fu; James A Zwiebel; Richard F Little; Donna Marinucci; Robert Catalano; Rick Magnan; Warren Kibbe; Carol Weil; James V Tricoli; Brian Alexander; Shaji Kumar; Gary K Schwartz; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Chih-Jian Lih; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Paolo Caimi; Naoko Takebe; Vivekananda Datta; Carlos L Arteaga; Jeffrey S Abrams; Robert Comis; Peter J O'Dwyer; Barbara A Conley Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 13.506