Renata Block, MMS, PA-C, Deborah Patterson, MMS, PA-C, Jennifer J. Siegel, PhD, Brian Martin, PhD, Ann P. Quick, PhD, Jillian Hunt, MSN, APRN, FNP-C, AOCNP
{"title":"Clinical Utility of the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants","authors":"Renata Block, MMS, PA-C, Deborah Patterson, MMS, PA-C, Jennifer J. Siegel, PhD, Brian Martin, PhD, Ann P. Quick, PhD, Jillian Hunt, MSN, APRN, FNP-C, AOCNP","doi":"10.6004/jadpro.2023.14.7.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) can predict the risk of recurrence and metastasis in cutaneous melanoma (CM). We assessed the viewpoints and use of 31-GEP testing by physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) for patients with CM. Methods: NPs and PAs (n = 369) completed an 18-question online survey about their viewpoints and use of the 31-GEP risk-stratification test. Results: Most practitioners (n = 334, 90.5%) felt prognostic testing improved patient care and would recommend the 31-GEP to a colleague (n = 333, 90.2%) or a friend or family member (n = 289, 78.3%) who was diagnosed with CM. The 31-GEP test was used by 176 respondents in the preceding 12 months (53%). Among users of the 31-GEP test, 78% stated that the results would impact follow-up schedule and referral, 66% overall treatment decisions, 62% sentinel lymph node biopsy recommendations, and 50% surveillance imaging. In thin tumors (″ 1 mm), 82% of 31-GEP users and 44% of nonusers stated that the 31-GEP results would impact their treatment plan decisions. Conclusion: The 31-GEP test significantly impacts treatment plans in CM, particularly for thin and stage I melanomas. Importantly, even nonusers stated that 31-GEP test results would impact treatment plans as well as recommendations to a friend or family member.","PeriodicalId":17176,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2023.14.7.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) can predict the risk of recurrence and metastasis in cutaneous melanoma (CM). We assessed the viewpoints and use of 31-GEP testing by physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) for patients with CM. Methods: NPs and PAs (n = 369) completed an 18-question online survey about their viewpoints and use of the 31-GEP risk-stratification test. Results: Most practitioners (n = 334, 90.5%) felt prognostic testing improved patient care and would recommend the 31-GEP to a colleague (n = 333, 90.2%) or a friend or family member (n = 289, 78.3%) who was diagnosed with CM. The 31-GEP test was used by 176 respondents in the preceding 12 months (53%). Among users of the 31-GEP test, 78% stated that the results would impact follow-up schedule and referral, 66% overall treatment decisions, 62% sentinel lymph node biopsy recommendations, and 50% surveillance imaging. In thin tumors (″ 1 mm), 82% of 31-GEP users and 44% of nonusers stated that the 31-GEP results would impact their treatment plan decisions. Conclusion: The 31-GEP test significantly impacts treatment plans in CM, particularly for thin and stage I melanomas. Importantly, even nonusers stated that 31-GEP test results would impact treatment plans as well as recommendations to a friend or family member.