Understanding and information needs of cancer patients regarding treatment-focused genomic testing: A systematic review.
cancer
communication
genomic testing
information needs
oncology
personalized cancer treatment
precision oncology
targeted therapy
understanding
Journal
Psycho-oncology
ISSN: 1099-1611
Titre abrégé: Psychooncology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9214524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
received:
10
12
2019
revised:
28
01
2020
accepted:
02
02
2020
pubmed:
7
2
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
7
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To systematically review literature exploring experiences of cancer patients regarding their understanding of treatment-focused genomic testing as well as their information needs and related themes. Six databases were searched for the original studies published in English language that explored patients' understanding of the information related to the genomic testing and its implications for treatment of cancer. The Mixed-Method Assessement Tool was used to examine the methodological quality of selected articles. There were 14 studies (5 qualitative and 9 quantitative) that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority of studies revealed that a considerable proportion of cancer patients lacked good undertstanding of treatment-focused genomic testing and wanted to be better informed. Some of the factors associated with poor knowledge about genomic testing were low education, older age, low income, and unemployment. The majority of people with cancer preferred face-to-face communication with their oncologists to discuss and ask questions about genomic testing and treatment. Most also wanted to receive simple, easy to understand written information about treatment-focused genomic testing. Genomic testing and its implications for treatment emerge as an important aspect of health care across different types of cancer. The evidence indicates that cancer patients want to understand and be well informed about treatment-focused genomic testing in order to be part of decision-making process. Further studies addressing ways to improve cancer patients' understanding and knowledge of genomic testing are needed.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
632-638Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Kumar-Sinha C, Chinnaiyan AM. Precision oncology in the age of integrative genomics. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(1):46-55.
Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2091-2096.
Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. New Eng J Med. 2011;364(26):2507-2516.
Carlson JJ, Roth JA. The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141(1):13-22.
Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med. 2008;10(1):19-32.
Howard AF, Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL. Women's decision making about risk-reducing strategies in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. J Genet Couns. 2009;18(6):578-597.
Nelson HD, Pappas M, Zakher B, Mitchell JP, Okinaka-Hu L, Fu R. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: a systematic review to update the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):255-266.
Ringwald J, Wochnowski C, Bosse K, et al. Psychological distress, anxiety, and depression of cancer-affected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: a systematic review. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(5):880-891.
Peterson EB, Chou WYS, Gaysynsky A, et al. Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: A landscape analysis of reviews. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(1):59-70.
Yanes T, Willis AM, Meiser B, Tucker KM, Best M. Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genomic testing in cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;(1):220-230.
Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398-405.
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., … & Rousseau, M. C.. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), Version 2018. IC Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada; 2018.
Gleeson M, Meiser B, Barlow-Stewart K, et al. Communication and information needs of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer regarding treatment-focused genetic testing. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2013;40(3):275-283.
Gray SW, Hicks-Courant K, Lathan CS, Garraway L, Park ER, Weeks JC. Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(6):329-335.
Liang R, Meiser B, Smith S, et al. Advanced cancer patients' attitudes towards, and experiences with, screening for somatic mutations in tumours: a qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;26(6):e12600.
Pellegrini I, Rapti M, Extra JM, et al. Tailored chemotherapy based on tumour gene expression analysis: breast cancer patients' misinterpretations and positive attitudes. Eur J Cancer Care. 2012;21(2):242-250.
Pinheiro AP, Pocock RH, Dixon MD, Shaib WL, Ramalingam SS, Pentz RD. Using metaphors to explain molecular testing to cancer patients. Oncologist. 2017;22(4):445-449.
Blanchette PS, Spreafico A, Miller FA, et al. Genomic testing in cancer: patient knowledge, attitudes, and expectations. Cancer. 2014;120(19):3066-3073.
Cuffe S, Hon H, Qiu X, et al. Cancer patients' acceptance, understanding, and willingness-to-pay for pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2014;24(7):348-355.
Lillie SE, Brewer NT, O'Neill SC, et al. Retention and use of breast cancer recurrence risk information from genomic tests: the role of health literacy. Cancer Epidemiol Prevent Biomark. 2007;16(2):249-255.
Lipkus IM, Vadaparampil ST, Jacobsen PB, Miree CA. Knowledge about genomic recurrence risk testing among breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26(4):664-669.
Pinheiro AP, Pocock RH, Switchenko JM, et al. Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences. Cancer. 2017;123(9):1610-1616.
Richman AR, Tzeng JP, Carey LA, Retèl VP, Brewer NT. Knowledge of genomic testing among early-stage breast cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2011;20(1):28-35.
Rogith D, Yusuf RA, Hovick SR, et al. Patient knowledge and information-seeking about personalized cancer therapy. Int J Med Inform. 2016;88:52-57.
Seror V, Marino P, Bertucci F, et al. Breast cancer patients' views on the use of genomic testing to guide decisions about their postoperative chemotherapy. Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(3):110-117.
Tzeng JP, Mayer D, Richman AR, et al. Women's experiences with genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk. Cancer. 2010;116(8):1992-2000.
Gaston CM, Mitchell G. Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(10):2252-2264.
Tariman JD, Berry DL, Cochrane B, Doorenbos A, Schepp K. Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2009;21(6):1145-1151.
Parker RM, Wolf MS, Kirsch I. Preparing for an epidemic of limited health literacy: Weathering the perfect storm. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(8):1273-1276.
Burke W, Antommaria AHM, Bennett R, et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genet Med. 2013;15(11):854-859.
Cho MK. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):280-285.
Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15(7):565-574.
McGuire AL, Joffe S, Koenig BA, et al. Point-counterpoint ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science (New York, NY). 2013;340(6136):1047-1048.
Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340(6136):1049-1050.
Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S, Hatton-Bauer J, Turnbull G. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26(1):12-21.
McPherson CJ, Higginson IJ, Hearn J. Effective methods of giving information in cancer: a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials. J Public Health. 2001;23(3):227-234.
Wagland R, Bracher M, Drosdowsky A, et al. Differences in experiences of care between patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer of known and unknown primaries: mixed-method findings from the 2013 cancer patient experience survey in England. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017881.
James N, Daniels H, Rahman R, McConkey C, Derry J, Young A. A study of information seeking by cancer patients and their carers. Clin Oncol. 2007;19(5):356-362.
Ahles TA, Saykin AJ, McDonald BC, et al. Cognitive function in breast cancer patients prior to adjuvant treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110(1):143-152.
Cull A, Hay C, Love SB, Mackie M, Smets E, Stewart M. What do cancer patients mean when they complain of concentration and memory problems? Br J Cancer. 1996;74(10):1674-1679.
Moloczij N, Krishnasamy M, Butow P, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of audio-recordings and question prompt lists in cancer care consultations: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(6):1083-1091.
Rieger KL, Hack TF, Beaver K, Schofield P. Should consultation recording use be a practice standard? A systematic review of the effectiveness and implementation of consultation recordings. Psychooncology. 2018;27(4):1121-1128.
Vassy JL, Korf BR, Green RC. How to know when physicians are ready for genomic medicine. Science Translational Medicine. 2015;7(287):287fs19-287fs19.
Fallowfield L, Solis-Trapala I, Starkings R, Catt S, May S, Jenkins V. Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;1-9.