Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery
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: https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00247
Abstract: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.