Brittany Gardner1, Michelle Doose2, Janeth I Sanchez2, Andrew N Freedman3, Janet S de Moor2. 1. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD. 2. Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD. 3. Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Oncologists are increasingly using molecular profiling to inform personalized patient treatment decisions. Despite its promising utility, the integration of genomic testing into diverse clinical health care settings across geographic settings has been understudied. METHODS: We used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, a nationally representative sample of practicing US oncologists, to assess the availability of six genomic testing resources, including on-site pathology, contracts with outside laboratories, on-site genetic counselors, internal policies or protocols for using genomic and biomarker testing, electronic medical record alerts, and genomic or molecular tumor boards. We used multivariate logistic regression models to examine differences in the availability of each genomic testing resource by practice type and rurality while adjusting for payer mix and patient volume. RESULTS: A larger proportion of multispecialty group and academic practices had genomic testing resources available compared with solo and nonacademic practices. Electronic medical record alerts were the least available resource, whereas contracts with outside laboratories were the most available resource. Compared with urban practices, there were significantly fewer practices located in rural areas that had on-site pathology, on-site genetic counselors, protocols for genomic tests, and molecular tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Genomic testing resources varied by practice type and geography among a nationally representative sample of practicing oncologists. This variation has important implications for the development of interventions and policies to support the more equitable delivery of precision oncology to patients with cancer.
PURPOSE: Oncologists are increasingly using molecular profiling to inform personalized patient treatment decisions. Despite its promising utility, the integration of genomic testing into diverse clinical health care settings across geographic settings has been understudied. METHODS: We used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, a nationally representative sample of practicing US oncologists, to assess the availability of six genomic testing resources, including on-site pathology, contracts with outside laboratories, on-site genetic counselors, internal policies or protocols for using genomic and biomarker testing, electronic medical record alerts, and genomic or molecular tumor boards. We used multivariate logistic regression models to examine differences in the availability of each genomic testing resource by practice type and rurality while adjusting for payer mix and patient volume. RESULTS: A larger proportion of multispecialty group and academic practices had genomic testing resources available compared with solo and nonacademic practices. Electronic medical record alerts were the least available resource, whereas contracts with outside laboratories were the most available resource. Compared with urban practices, there were significantly fewer practices located in rural areas that had on-site pathology, on-site genetic counselors, protocols for genomic tests, and molecular tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Genomic testing resources varied by practice type and geography among a nationally representative sample of practicing oncologists. This variation has important implications for the development of interventions and policies to support the more equitable delivery of precision oncology to patients with cancer.
Authors: Laura A Levit; Edward S Kim; Barbara L McAneny; Lincoln D Nadauld; Kathryn Levit; Caroline Schenkel; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Ileana L Piña; Perry D Cohen; David B Larson; Lucy N Marion; Marion R Sills; Leif I Solberg; Judy Zerzan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: M Kelsey Kirkwood; Amy Hanley; Suanna S Bruinooge; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Laura A Levit; Caroline Schenkel; Jerome E Seid; Blase N Polite; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Nina R Sperber; Janet S Carpenter; Larisa H Cavallari; Laura J Damschroder; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; Joshua C Denny; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Yue Guan; Carol R Horowitz; Kenneth D Levy; Mia A Levy; Ebony B Madden; Michael E Matheny; Toni I Pollin; Victoria M Pratt; Marc Rosenman; Corrine I Voils; Kristen W Weitzel; Russell A Wilke; R Ryanne Wu; Lori A Orlando Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Teri A Manolio; Rex L Chisholm; Brad Ozenberger; Dan M Roden; Marc S Williams; Richard Wilson; David Bick; Erwin P Bottinger; Murray H Brilliant; Charis Eng; Kelly A Frazer; Bruce Korf; David H Ledbetter; James R Lupski; Clay Marsh; David Mrazek; Michael F Murray; Peter H O'Donnell; Daniel J Rader; Mary V Relling; Alan R Shuldiner; David Valle; Richard Weinshilboum; Eric D Green; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Thomas J George; Natalie Silver; Merry-Jennifer Markham; Jaclyn M Hall; Yi Guo; Jiang Bian; Elizabeth A Shenkman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Danielle Riley; Mary Charlton; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Sneha Phadke; Brian J Smith; Adam Skibbe; Charles F Lynch Journal: Breast J Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 2.269