Kortnye Smith, Sophie O'Haire, Benjamin Markman, Hui K Gan, Kenneth O'Byrne, Michael Millward, Ben Tran, Benjamin J Solomon, Clare Scott, Damien Kee, Grant McArthur, Andrew Fellowes, Dong Anh K Khoung-Quang, Paul Ekert, Paul James, Huiling Xu, Melissa Martyn, Elly Lynch, Rona Weerasuriya, Clara Gaff, Stephen B Fox, Jayesh Desai
{"title":"患者对复杂基因组测序的体验,探索患者的偏好、障碍和实施的推动因素。","authors":"Kortnye Smith, Sophie O'Haire, Benjamin Markman, Hui K Gan, Kenneth O'Byrne, Michael Millward, Ben Tran, Benjamin J Solomon, Clare Scott, Damien Kee, Grant McArthur, Andrew Fellowes, Dong Anh K Khoung-Quang, Paul Ekert, Paul James, Huiling Xu, Melissa Martyn, Elly Lynch, Rona Weerasuriya, Clara Gaff, Stephen B Fox, Jayesh Desai","doi":"10.1200/PO.23.00247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting complex genomic sequencing (CGS) in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed-methods, prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGS in the care of patients with advanced cancer. DNA sequencing was undertaken on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor and matched blood was completed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes via central laboratory. Oncologists performed consent and result delivery. Patients completed pre- and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions and, if eligible, semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians to evaluate processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred ninety-nine (63%) had ≥1 finding with the potential to affect management, including 172 (55%) whose finding could affect their treatment options, 25 (8%) whose test led to the resolution of diagnostic ambiguity, and 49 (16%) with a pathogenic germline variant. In 6-month follow-up, 50 (16%) participants had their subsequent therapy changed on the basis of their CGS results. Two hundred ninety-three (88% of adult patients) completed surveys at three time points. At consent, patients cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test patients remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGS. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret after participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Clinicians cited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients undergoing CGS are generally satisfied and place value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGS with value to patients and investing institutions, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy, and decision-making support.</p>","PeriodicalId":14797,"journal":{"name":"JCO precision oncology","volume":"8 ","pages":"e2300247"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery.\",\"authors\":\"Kortnye Smith, Sophie O'Haire, Benjamin Markman, Hui K Gan, Kenneth O'Byrne, Michael Millward, Ben Tran, Benjamin J Solomon, Clare Scott, Damien Kee, Grant McArthur, Andrew Fellowes, Dong Anh K Khoung-Quang, Paul Ekert, Paul James, Huiling Xu, Melissa Martyn, Elly Lynch, Rona Weerasuriya, Clara Gaff, Stephen B Fox, Jayesh Desai\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/PO.23.00247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting complex genomic sequencing (CGS) in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed-methods, prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGS in the care of patients with advanced cancer. DNA sequencing was undertaken on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor and matched blood was completed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes via central laboratory. Oncologists performed consent and result delivery. Patients completed pre- and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions and, if eligible, semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians to evaluate processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred ninety-nine (63%) had ≥1 finding with the potential to affect management, including 172 (55%) whose finding could affect their treatment options, 25 (8%) whose test led to the resolution of diagnostic ambiguity, and 49 (16%) with a pathogenic germline variant. In 6-month follow-up, 50 (16%) participants had their subsequent therapy changed on the basis of their CGS results. Two hundred ninety-three (88% of adult patients) completed surveys at three time points. At consent, patients cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test patients remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGS. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret after participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Clinicians cited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients undergoing CGS are generally satisfied and place value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGS with value to patients and investing institutions, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy, and decision-making support.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"e2300247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00247\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO precision oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00247","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:尽管有越来越多的证据表明复杂基因组测序(CGS)有利于癌症治疗的个性化,但其广泛应用仍然有限:这项混合方法的前瞻性跨机构示范研究旨在评估 CGS 在晚期癌症患者治疗中的应用情况。对经福尔马林固定的石蜡包埋的肿瘤进行 DNA 测序,并通过中心实验室用 Peter MacCallum 癌症中心癌症综合样本(Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes)完成配血。由肿瘤学家签署同意书并提供结果。患者完成测试前和测试后的调查,包括经过验证的特定研究问题,如果符合条件,还可进行半结构化访谈。对研究临床医生进行了定性访谈,以评估流程:199人(63%)有≥1项可能影响治疗的结果,其中172人(55%)的结果可能会影响他们的治疗选择,25人(8%)通过检测解决了诊断不明确的问题,49人(16%)有致病性种系变异。在 6 个月的随访中,有 50 人(16%)根据 CGS 结果改变了后续治疗方案。293名患者(占成年患者的88%)在三个时间点完成了调查。在同意测试时,患者认为测试具有多方面的价值,对基本概念有很好的理解,但大多数患者(69%)高估了由结果导致改变的可能性。测试后,患者仍对使用 CGS 表示满意。21%的患者在理解结果方面遇到困难,但参与测试后对决定的后悔程度较低(89%的患者无/轻微后悔)。临床医生认为合作与沟通对治疗至关重要:结论:接受 CGS 检查的患者普遍感到满意,他们对 CGS 的使用价值超出了潜在的治疗效果。我们的研究结果表明,要提高 CGS 的测试效用并为患者和投资机构带来价值,就必须重点解决影响 CGS 广泛应用的其他障碍,包括努力提高流程效率、临床医生基因组知识和决策支持。
Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery.
Purpose: Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting complex genomic sequencing (CGS) in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited.
Methods: This mixed-methods, prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGS in the care of patients with advanced cancer. DNA sequencing was undertaken on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor and matched blood was completed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes via central laboratory. Oncologists performed consent and result delivery. Patients completed pre- and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions and, if eligible, semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians to evaluate processes.
Results: One hundred ninety-nine (63%) had ≥1 finding with the potential to affect management, including 172 (55%) whose finding could affect their treatment options, 25 (8%) whose test led to the resolution of diagnostic ambiguity, and 49 (16%) with a pathogenic germline variant. In 6-month follow-up, 50 (16%) participants had their subsequent therapy changed on the basis of their CGS results. Two hundred ninety-three (88% of adult patients) completed surveys at three time points. At consent, patients cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test patients remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGS. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret after participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Clinicians cited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery.
Conclusion: Patients undergoing CGS are generally satisfied and place value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGS with value to patients and investing institutions, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy, and decision-making support.