Patients' and Oncologists' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Tumor Multigene Next-Generation Sequencing: A Narrative Review.
Genomics
Knowledge
Metastatic
Motivation
Neoplasms
Precision medicine
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
21
12
2020
accepted:
25
03
2021
pubmed:
7
4
2021
medline:
29
9
2021
entrez:
6
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tumor multigene next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being offered to cancer patients to guide clinical management and determine eligibility for clinical trials. We undertook a review of studies examining the knowledge and attitudes of patients and oncologists regarding the primary results and potential secondary findings of such testing. A search was conducted through the MEDLINE database using the following keywords: "neoplasms" and "molecular sequencing / genome sequencing / tumor profiling / NGS / whole exome sequencing" and "patient / oncologist" and "knowledge / attitudes / satisfaction / experience / evaluation / perspective / practice / preference." Articles meeting the inclusion criteria and additional relevant articles from their references were selected. From 1,142 publications identified by the search and 9 from references, 21 publications were included in the final review. Patients generally had positive attitudes toward tumor NGS despite relatively little knowledge of test-related genetics concepts, but their expectations often exceeded the reality of low clinical utility. Patients with higher education and greater genetics knowledge had more realistic expectations and a more altruistic view of the role of NGS. Attitudes toward disclosure of secondary findings were highly variable. Oncologists had poor to moderate genomic literacy; they communicated challenges with tempering patient expectations and deciding what information to disclose. Patients considering undergoing tumor NGS should be provided with easily understandable resources explaining the procedure, goals, and probable outcomes, whenever possible based on evidence-based guidelines. Continuing medical education programs on this topic for oncology health care professionals should strive to improve their genomic literacy and instruct them on how to optimally present this information to their patients. Oncologists are increasingly offering tumor multigene testing to patients with advanced cancers to guide more "personalized" treatment and/or determine eligibility for clinical trials. However, patients often have inadequate understanding and unrealistic expectations. Oncologists must ensure that they themselves have sufficient knowledge of the benefits and limitations of testing and must provide their patients with appropriate educational resources. Prior to testing, patients should be told the likelihood of finding a mutation in their specific tumor type for which a targeted treatment or clinical trial is available. Patients also need clear information about the possibility and implications of secondary findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Tumor multigene next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being offered to cancer patients to guide clinical management and determine eligibility for clinical trials. We undertook a review of studies examining the knowledge and attitudes of patients and oncologists regarding the primary results and potential secondary findings of such testing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search was conducted through the MEDLINE database using the following keywords: "neoplasms" and "molecular sequencing / genome sequencing / tumor profiling / NGS / whole exome sequencing" and "patient / oncologist" and "knowledge / attitudes / satisfaction / experience / evaluation / perspective / practice / preference." Articles meeting the inclusion criteria and additional relevant articles from their references were selected.
RESULTS
From 1,142 publications identified by the search and 9 from references, 21 publications were included in the final review. Patients generally had positive attitudes toward tumor NGS despite relatively little knowledge of test-related genetics concepts, but their expectations often exceeded the reality of low clinical utility. Patients with higher education and greater genetics knowledge had more realistic expectations and a more altruistic view of the role of NGS. Attitudes toward disclosure of secondary findings were highly variable. Oncologists had poor to moderate genomic literacy; they communicated challenges with tempering patient expectations and deciding what information to disclose.
CONCLUSION
Patients considering undergoing tumor NGS should be provided with easily understandable resources explaining the procedure, goals, and probable outcomes, whenever possible based on evidence-based guidelines. Continuing medical education programs on this topic for oncology health care professionals should strive to improve their genomic literacy and instruct them on how to optimally present this information to their patients.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Oncologists are increasingly offering tumor multigene testing to patients with advanced cancers to guide more "personalized" treatment and/or determine eligibility for clinical trials. However, patients often have inadequate understanding and unrealistic expectations. Oncologists must ensure that they themselves have sufficient knowledge of the benefits and limitations of testing and must provide their patients with appropriate educational resources. Prior to testing, patients should be told the likelihood of finding a mutation in their specific tumor type for which a targeted treatment or clinical trial is available. Patients also need clear information about the possibility and implications of secondary findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33823080
doi: 10.1002/onco.13783
pmc: PMC8342587
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1359-e1371Informations de copyright
© 2021 AlphaMed Press.
Références
Genet Med. 2016 Oct;18(10):1011-9
pubmed: 26866579
Cancer. 2014 Oct 1;120(19):3066-73
pubmed: 24962202
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Oct;21(e2):e320-5
pubmed: 24737606
Clin Genet. 2015 Apr;87(4):319-26
pubmed: 24863757
Cancer. 2016 May 15;122(10):1588-97
pubmed: 26970385
Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;29(9):1895-1902
pubmed: 30137196
Ann Oncol. 2020 Nov;31(11):1491-1505
pubmed: 32853681
Psychooncology. 2018 Apr;27(4):1327-1333
pubmed: 29471587
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Feb 1;174(2):275-80
pubmed: 24217348
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Nov;9(6):435-440
pubmed: 31228657
Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 Jul;26(7):984-995
pubmed: 29703952
Fam Cancer. 2018 Apr;17(2):309-316
pubmed: 28852913
Cancer Med. 2019 Jan;8(1):227-237
pubmed: 30600607
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Jul;13(7):e590-e601
pubmed: 28628391
Breast. 2009 Oct;18 Suppl 3:S141-5
pubmed: 19914534
Cancer. 2017 May 1;123(9):1610-1616
pubmed: 28140456
Fukushima J Med Sci. 2018 Apr 17;64(1):9-14
pubmed: 29628467
Genet Med. 2013 Nov;15(11):873-81
pubmed: 23722871
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Feb 21;2:
pubmed: 32914003
J Genet Couns. 2016 Apr;25(2):218-27
pubmed: 26259529
J Oncol Pract. 2012 Nov;8(6):329-35, 2 p following 335
pubmed: 23598841
BMC Cancer. 2019 Jul 31;19(1):753
pubmed: 31366375
Hum Resour Health. 2017 Jun 27;15(1):42
pubmed: 28655303
JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Oct 21;3:
pubmed: 32923865
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 1;3(5):e204721
pubmed: 32407502
J Med Genet. 2020 Oct;57(10):671-676
pubmed: 31980566
Transl Oncol. 2020 Sep;13(9):100799
pubmed: 32450551
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Apr;88:52-7
pubmed: 26878762
Psychooncology. 2020 Feb;29(2):423-429
pubmed: 31713281
Eur J Hum Genet. 2014 Mar;22(3):391-5
pubmed: 23860039
Cancer. 2015 Jan 15;121(2):243-50
pubmed: 25209923
J Community Genet. 2016 Apr;7(2):145-52
pubmed: 26860291
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 1;32(13):1317-23
pubmed: 24663044
Genet Med. 2017 Feb;19(2):249-255
pubmed: 27854360