Literature DB >> 35617031

Cross-sectional clinical cancer genomics community of practice survey analysis of provider attitudes and beliefs regarding the use of deceased family member tissue to guide living family member genetic cancer risk assessment.

Bita Nehoray1, Thomas P Slavin1, Can-Lan Sun2, Karen Hurley3, Elisabeth King1, Kevin K Tsang1, Aleck Cervantes1, Janet V Mokhnatkin1, Sharon Sand1, Rosa Mejia1, Anne Reb4, Goli Samimi5, Stacy Gray1, Kathleen R Blazer1, Jeffrey N Weitzel6.   

Abstract

Next-generation tumor tissue sequencing techniques may result in the detection of putative germline pathogenic variants (PVs), raising the possibility that germline cancer predisposition could be identified from archival medical tissue samples of deceased relatives. The approach, termed traceback, is designed to inform risk management recommendations for living family members. Provider perspectives regarding traceback testing have not yet been explored, so we conducted a cross-sectional survey of Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice providers regarding their attitudes and beliefs toward traceback testing. Self-reported demographics, provider characteristics, attitudes and perceived barriers were collected. We evaluated responses in the context of whether providers had previous experience with traceback testing. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher's exact testing. Among 207 respondents (of 816 eligible), most were women (89.4%), white (85.5%), and not Hispanic or Latino (89.7%). US-based providers represented the majority of respondents (87.4%). Relatively, few providers 32 of 207 (15.5%) had previous experience with traceback. Among the individuals without experience in traceback, 84.0% thought there would be barriers to implementation; however, only 68.8% of individuals with previous traceback experience agreed (p = .04). Respondents in both groups thought that traceback would be valuable in their practice (82.6%, p = .22) and that they would feel comfortable discussing the concept (83.6%, p = .83), interpreting the results (72.2%, p = .24), and discussing the results with their patients (80.7%, p = .38). Patient interest and cost were seen as less of a barrier by those with experience with traceback testing. Recurrent themes obtained in open-ended responses are also presented. Overall, providers believe that traceback would be a valuable tool in their practice. Individuals with previous experience identified less barriers with implementation of this testing, highlighting an area for future research and education.
© 2022 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attitudes; cascade testing; genetic testing; risk assessment; susceptibility testing; traceback

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35617031      PMCID: PMC9529780          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.717


  11 in total

1.  Reporting practices for variants of uncertain significance from next generation sequencing technologies.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Karine Sénécal; Pascal Borry
Journal:  Eur J Med Genet       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 2.708

2.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  The crystal ball of genetic cancer risk assessment: who wouldn't want to know their future?

Authors:  J N Weitzel
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1998 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Increased Reach of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment as a Tool for Precision Management of Hereditary Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Kathleen R Blazer; Thomas Slavin; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

6.  Impact of web-based case conferencing on cancer genetics training outcomes for community-based clinicians.

Authors:  Kathleen R Blazer; Christina Christie; Gwen Uman; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Traceback: A Proposed Framework to Increase Identification and Genetic Counseling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Through Family-Based Outreach.

Authors:  Goli Samimi; Marcus Q Bernardini; Lawrence C Brody; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Ian G Campbell; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Fergus J Couch; Michael Dean; Joanne A de Hullu; Susan M Domchek; Ronny Drapkin; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael Friedlander; Mia M Gaudet; Marline G Harmsen; Karen Hurley; Paul A James; Janice S Kwon; Felicitas Lacbawan; Stephanie Lheureux; Phuong L Mai; Leah E Mechanic; Lori M Minasian; Evan R Myers; Mark E Robson; Susan J Ramus; Lisa F Rezende; Patricia A Shaw; Thomas P Slavin; Elizabeth M Swisher; Masataka Takenaka; David D Bowtell; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Next-Generation Testing for Cancer Risk: Perceptions, Experiences, and Needs Among Early Adopters in Community Healthcare Settings.

Authors:  Kathleen R Blazer; Bita Nehoray; Ilana Solomon; Mariana Niell-Swiller; Julie O Culver; Gwen C Uman; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2015-11-05

9.  Germline FFPE inherited cancer panel testing in deceased family members: implications for clinical management of unaffected relatives.

Authors:  Sarah Bennett; Elizabeth Alexander; Harry Fraser; Naomi Bowers; Andrew Wallace; Emma R Woodward; Fiona Lalloo; Anne Marie Quinn; Shuwen Huang; Helene Schlecht; D Gareth Evans
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 5.351

10.  Evidence of a founder BRCA1 mutation in Scotland.

Authors:  A Liede; B Cohen; D M Black; R H Davidson; A Renwick; E Hoodfar; O I Olopade; M Micek; V Anderson; R De Mey; A Fordyce; E Warner; J L Dann; M C King; B Weber; S A Narod; C M Steel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.