Catriona Mowbray1, Joyce Turner2, Jiaxiang Gai3, Shana Jacobs1. 1. Center of Cancer and Blood Disorders, 8404Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Division of Genetics and Metabolism, 8404Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Division of Biostatistics and Study Methodology, 8404Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
Background: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, a component of personalized medicine, aims to ensure treatment efficacy while reducing side effects and symptoms. Before this testing becomes routine in the pediatric oncology population, nurses need to understand the knowledge and concerns of providers, patients, and family members with regard to the timing, extent, interpretation, and incorporation of PGx testing. Methods: As part of a comprehensive PGx study (larger study) for children diagnosed with cancer, we surveyed providers and caregivers of children with cancer about their knowledge of and comfort with PGx testing. Caregivers who declined to participate in the larger PGx study were also asked to participate in the survey. Chi-square tests and a two-sample t-test were used to compare variables. Results: One hundred and two participants from the larger PGx study and 12 families who refused (response rate of 77% and 54%, respectively) as well as 29 providers (88%) completed surveys. Families not on the study were less interested in and comfortable with PGx results. Both groups were concerned about health or life insurance discrimination and payment. Providers would like support in ordering PGx testing and interpreting PGx. Discussion: Providers remain wary of most PGx testing, uncomfortable with interpreting and applying the results. Families are interested in the possibilities of personalized prescribing while worried about who has access to their child's genetic information. Further education on relevant tests for providers, including nurses, and the testing process for families, including details on privacy and sharing of genetic information, appear necessary.
Background: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, a component of personalized medicine, aims to ensure treatment efficacy while reducing side effects and symptoms. Before this testing becomes routine in the pediatric oncology population, nurses need to understand the knowledge and concerns of providers, patients, and family members with regard to the timing, extent, interpretation, and incorporation of PGx testing. Methods: As part of a comprehensive PGx study (larger study) for children diagnosed with cancer, we surveyed providers and caregivers of children with cancer about their knowledge of and comfort with PGx testing. Caregivers who declined to participate in the larger PGx study were also asked to participate in the survey. Chi-square tests and a two-sample t-test were used to compare variables. Results: One hundred and two participants from the larger PGx study and 12 families who refused (response rate of 77% and 54%, respectively) as well as 29 providers (88%) completed surveys. Families not on the study were less interested in and comfortable with PGx results. Both groups were concerned about health or life insurance discrimination and payment. Providers would like support in ordering PGx testing and interpreting PGx. Discussion: Providers remain wary of most PGx testing, uncomfortable with interpreting and applying the results. Families are interested in the possibilities of personalized prescribing while worried about who has access to their child's genetic information. Further education on relevant tests for providers, including nurses, and the testing process for families, including details on privacy and sharing of genetic information, appear necessary.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Kelly E Caudle; Nicholas J Keeling; Teri E Klein; Michelle Whirl-Carrillo; Victoria M Pratt; James M Hoffman Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Henry M Dunnenberger; Kristine R Crews; James M Hoffman; Kelly E Caudle; Ulrich Broeckel; Scott C Howard; Robert J Hunkler; Teri E Klein; William E Evans; Mary V Relling Journal: Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 13.820
Authors: Haridarshan N Patel; Iulia D Ursan; Patrick M Zueger; Larisa H Cavallari; A Simon Pickard Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Kimberly M Deininger; Shirley M Tsunoda; Jan D Hirsch; Heather Anderson; Yee Ming Lee; Colleen K McIlvennan; Robert L Page; Jacinda N Tran; Christina L Aquilante Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Amalia M Issa; Sarah Ae Aboushawareb; David D Eisenstat; Greg Mt Guilcher; Geoffrey Liu; S Rod Rassekh; Caron Strahlendorf; Gesche Tallen; Reo Tanoshima; Bruce Carleton Journal: Per Med Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Larisa H Cavallari; Sara L Van Driest; Cynthia A Prows; Jeffrey R Bishop; Nita A Limdi; Victoria M Pratt; Laura B Ramsey; D Max Smith; Sony Tuteja; Benjamin Q Duong; J Kevin Hicks; James C Lee; Aniwaa Owusu Obeng; Amber L Beitelshees; Gillian C Bell; Kathryn Blake; Daniel J Crona; Lynn Dressler; Ryan A Gregg; Lindsay J Hines; Stuart A Scott; Richard C Shelton; Kristin Wiisanen Weitzel; Julie A Johnson; Josh F Peterson; Philip E Empey; Todd C Skaar Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 8.822