Literature DB >> 34250411

Oncologist-Reported Reasons for Not Ordering Multimarker Tumor Panels: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey.

Megan C Roberts1,2, Lisa P Spees2,3, Andrew N Freedman4, William M P Klein4, Irene Prabhu Das5, Eboneé N Butler6, Janet S de Moor4.   

Abstract

This study examines oncologist-reported reasons for not using multimarker tumor panel testing and the association between these reasons and oncologist-level, facility-level, and patient-mix characteristics.
METHODS: We used data collected from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,281) of medical oncologists participating in the National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment.
RESULTS: In addition to testing not being seen as relevant (87%) and no evidence of test utility (77%), the most frequently reported reasons for not ordering a multimarker tumor panel test was difficulty in obtaining sufficient tissue (57%) and using individual gene tests (72%). These reasons were more likely to be reported by oncologists practicing in rural clinics and less likely to be reported by oncologists with an academic affiliation or with access to genetic services such as on-site genetic counselors and internal genetic testing policies.
CONCLUSION: Modifiable, organizational factors were associated with ordering multimarker tumor panels. Receipt of genomics training and organizational policies related to the use of genomics were associated with lower reporting of barriers to ordering multimarker tumor panels, pointing to potential targets for future studies aimed at increasing appropriate multimarker tumor panel testing in cancer treatment management.
© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34250411      PMCID: PMC8232803          DOI: 10.1200/PO.20.00431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol        ISSN: 2473-4284


  9 in total

1.  Implementation of wide-scale pharmacogenetic testing in primary care.

Authors:  Jordan Baye; Aissa Aifaoui; Russell A Wilke; Roxana A Lupu; John Savageau; Britni Gapp; Amanda Massmann; Deidre Hahn; Catherine Hajek; April Schultz
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.533

Review 2.  Genetic Counseling and Testing in a Community Setting: Quality, Access, and Efficiency.

Authors:  Stephanie A Cohen; Angela Bradbury; Vida Henderson; Kent Hoskins; Erica Bednar; Banu K Arun
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2019-05-17

3.  A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk.

Authors:  Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser; Judi Homewood; Michelle Peate; Alan Taylor; Elizabeth Lobb; Judy Kirk; Mary-Anne Young; Rachel Williams; Tracy Dudding; Kathy Tucker
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  Building a personalized medicine infrastructure at a major cancer center.

Authors:  Funda Meric-Bernstam; Carol Farhangfar; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.

Authors:  Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Authors:  Caroline Pearce; Emma Goettke; Nina Hallowell; Pauline McCormack; Frances Flinter; Christopher McKevitt
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 7.  Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Divya Talwar; Tung-Sung Tseng; Margaret Foster; Lei Xu; Lei-Shih Chen
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 8.  Collaborative, Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Cancer Variants Through Virtual Molecular Tumor Boards Informs Local Clinical Practices.

Authors:  Shruti Rao; Beth Pitel; Alex H Wagner; Simina M Boca; Matthew McCoy; Ian King; Samir Gupta; Ben Ho Park; Jeremy L Warner; James Chen; Peter K Rogan; Debyani Chakravarty; Malachi Griffith; Obi L Griffith; Subha Madhavan
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2020-07

9.  Risks and rewards of using prepaid vs. postpaid incentive checks on a survey of physicians.

Authors:  Kristine Wiant; Emily Geisen; Darryl Creel; Gordon Willis; Andrew Freedman; Janet de Moor; Carrie Klabunde
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 4.615

  9 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Optimizing the Diagnosis and Biomarker Testing for Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multidisciplinary Approach.

Authors:  May T Cho; Sepideh Gholami; Dorina Gui; Sooraj L Tejaswi; Ghaneh Fananapazir; Nadine Abi-Jaoudeh; Zeljka Jutric; Jason B Samarasena; Xiaodong Li; Jennifer B Valerin; Jacob Mercer; Farshid Dayyani
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 6.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.