[When should standard treatment not be applied for the tuberculosis patient?].

B. Dautzenberg,M. Fréchet-Jachym,J. Maffre,E. Cardot,J. Grignet

IF: 0.714

2004-06-01

Revue des Maladies Respiratoires

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Laboratory Practices, Potentiality, and Material Patienthood in Genomic Cancer Medicine

Julia Swallow,Tineke Broer,Anne Kerr,Sarah Cunningham-Burley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439231172571

Abstract:Laboratory practitioners working in oncology are increasingly involved in implementing genomic medicine, operating at the intersection of the laboratory and the clinic. This includes molecular diagnostic work and molecular testing to direct entry into molecular-based clinical trials and treatment decision-making based on molecular profiling. In this article, we draw on qualitative interviews with laboratory practitioners in the United Kingdom to explore the role of laboratory work in genomic cancer medicine, focusing on the handling of patient tissue and making of potentiality to guide patients' present and future care. With an increase in molecular testing to inform standard care and clinical trial participation, we show how practitioners "potentialized" the tissue by carefully negotiating what to test, how to test, and when. This included maximizing and managing small amounts of tissue in anticipation of possible future patient care. Tissue archives also took on new meaning, and potentiality, which practitioners negotiated alongside patient care. Potentiality was key to generating the "big" future of genomic medicine and also involved care work where the tissue emerged as an extension of the patient, as a form of "material patienthood," to secure present and future care for patients through their involvement in genomic medicine.
Translating potential germline findings from tumour profiling into routine clinical care.

Milita Zaheed,John P. Grady,Beverley Murrow,Bridget Douglas,Ellie Carpenter,Skye Mckay,Shuang Liang,Natalie Taylor,Frank Po-Yen Lin,David Goldstein,Kathy Tucker,David Morgan Thomas,Mandy L. Ballinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.23_suppl.105

IF: 45.3

2024-08-14

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:105 Background: Tumor molecular profiling (TMP) provides an opportunity to identify heritable cancer predisposition. Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Study (MoST) (8000 patients, 2016-23) and Cancer Screening Program (CaSP) (23000 patients, 2023-25) are Australian research programs providing TMP for therapy matching in advanced cancer. Matched germline testing is resource-inefficient and is not performed . An integrated approach between TMP and cancer genetics is needed to improve familial cancer outcomes through prevention and early detection. Methods: In MoST, potential germline variants (PGV) in actionable cancer genes were investigated in blood DNA in a research setting. Positive cases were informed, and a genetics review for clinical testing recommended. In CaSP, germline follow-up recommendations are included in the Molecular Oncology Board (MOB) Report based on decision algorithms to inform clinicians of PGV needing clinical assessment. Cancer genetics clinics in Australia were surveyed regarding preferences for the return of genetic information from tumor profiling. A centralised precision care clinic was launched in March 2024 to investigate the implementation of returning PGV information from tumor-only profiling. Results: In MoST, 38% (140/367) of PGVs tested were positive in blood DNA. Of these, 44% were identified in the highest actionability genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, Lynch Syndrome. The validation and return of results process was unsatisfactory; it was resource-heavy, timeframes were extended, DNA was sometimes unavailable, and communicating information to non-participating relatives of deceased participants was challenging due to a lack of established pathways. The systems design in CaSP has allowed the study to manage higher volume without a net increase in germline workforce. To date, 2372 patients have completed profiling with 173 MOB recommendations for PGV validations. Fifty-four cancer genetics staff nationally responded to the survey. Many (61%) were concerned about the increased uptake of TMP without a workforce to match germline testing demand (97%) and lack of funding assigned in a universal healthcare system (70%) being main concerns. Most (82%) supported a centralised service anticipating improved efficiency gain (71%), equity of access (77%) and streamlining of processes (71%). The stakeholders voiced a consistently high (>50%) demand for information regarding PGV in lower actionability genes. MOB recommendations were adapted to reflect 3 tiers of actionability The centralised clinic has reviewed 21 patients nationally to test 23 highest actionability variants. The average referral to review time is 2 weeks. Conclusions: Precision oncology can play a role in familial cancer prevention. Deliberate collaboration and integration between precision research and relevant specialised care can lead to resource-optimised, equitable delivery of quality care.

oncology
Multivalent liposome-based vaccines containing different serosubtypes of PorA protein induce cross-protective bactericidal immune responses against Neisseria meningitidis.

H. Humphries,Jeannette N. Williams,R. Blackstone,K. Jolley,H. M. Yuen,M. Christodoulides,J. Heckels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VACCINE.2005.07.056

IF: 4.169

2006-01-09

Vaccine

Abstract:
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.
Experiences across a genetic screening and testing programme pathway: a qualitative study of mammogram patient perspectives

Claire Devine,Kate R Emery,Kimberly K Childers,Sandra Brown,Ora Gordon,Sarah E Roth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089884

IF: 3.006

2024-10-25

BMJ Open

Abstract:Background Population-based genetic screening and testing programmes have substantial potential to improve cancer-related outcomes through early detection and cancer prevention. Yet, genetic testing for cancer risk remains largely underused. This study aimed to describe barriers and facilitators to patient engagement at each stage of a California-based genetic screening programme, from completing the electronic screener to receiving the test and to identify potential improvements that could support precision medicine-based approaches to patient care. Methods We conducted 26 semistructured interviews among programme participants who did not complete the screener (n=9), those who did not receive the recommended test (n=7) and those who received a genetic test (n=10). Interviewees were selected from patients who recently received a mammogram through one of the participating Southern California clinics. Interviews were transcribed and coded using Atlas.ti. The study used a qualitative descriptive approach to identify similar and contrasting themes among the participant groups. Results This study found that barriers and facilitators to engagement were largely the same regardless of how far participants had moved through the process towards getting a genetic test. We identified four overarching themes: participants wanted clear communication of personal benefits at each stage; participants needed additional information and knowledge to navigate genetic screening and testing; a trusted provider could be instrumental in participants following a recommendation; and repetition and timing strongly impacted participants' likelihood to engage. Conclusions Providing education about the benefits of genetic screening and testing to patients and their families, as well as clear communication about what each step entails may help patients engage with similar programmes. Strategies aimed at increasing coordination among a patient's healthcare team can also help ensure information reaches patients in multiple ways, from multiple providers, to increase the likelihood that recommendations for testing come from trusted sources, which supports the uptake of genetic testing.

medicine, general & internal
Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review

Jacqueline D Hunter,Kate Hetherington,Eliza Courtney,Yasmin Christensen,Noemi Fuentes-Bolanos,Kanika Bhatia,Michelle Peate

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101197

Abstract:Purpose: Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes. Results: We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible. Conclusion: Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family's situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences. Prospero: CRD42023444890.
Ascorbimetry, the determination of ferric iron and cupric copper content of certain vegetables.

M. Z. Barakat,M. Bassiouni,M. El-Wakil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/JSFA.2740230603

1972-06-01

The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Abstract:The iodometric determination of ferric iron and cupric copper content of 14 types of vegetables by the use of standard L-ascorbic acid solution is reported. Statistical analysis of the data gained shows the maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation for each variable. The mean ferric iron content of the investigated vegetables ranged from 21.31 to 0.91 mg%, whereas that of cupric copper varied from 0.50 to 0.01 mg%.
Abstract 5167: Barriers to tumor mutational burden (TMB) testing in oncology care - U.S. Physician Survey

Gieira Jones,Elizabeth Szamreta,Bianca Jackson,Ning Ning,Jennifer Stephens,Arif Hussain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-5167

IF: 11.2

2024-03-29

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Genomic technologies have become increasingly available in oncology; however, barriers remain in terms of TMB use. This study aimed to identify barriers to physicians' adoption/use of TMB testing. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a representative sample of U.S. general medical, surgical, and/or gynecologic oncologists, including both users and non-users of TMB testing. Physician demographics, practice characteristics, barriers (reimbursement, knowledge, logistics), and approaches to alleviate barriers were collected. Quotas were put in place to ensure a distribution of diverse physician characteristics such as academic affiliations, geography, TMB use, etc. Descriptive analysis was conducted via SASv9.4. Results: Three hundred physicians participated (47.6 mean years of age and 15.2 mean years in clinical practice on average; 50% medical oncologists, 31% surgical oncologists, and 19% gynecologic oncologists). Ninety percent of respondents reported using TMB testing. The most common barrier to TMB testing use was test turnaround time (All: 74.3%; TMB users: 72.3%; non-TMB users: 93.1%). Other commonly reported barriers included unawareness of corresponding therapy and/or clinical trials that may benefit a patient with mutation (All: 68.3%; users: 66.1%; non-users: 89.7%), obtaining prior authorizations (All: 65.7%; users: 62.7%; non-users: 93.1%), and difficulty obtaining a biopsy for testing (All: 57.3%; users: 57.6%, non-users: 55.2%). Increased coverage of TMB testing, access to educational content, and the establishment of minimally acceptable technical standards were reported as key approaches to increasing adoption/use of TMB testing. Conclusions: These results suggest that challenges around reimbursement, knowledge, and logistics are key barriers to use of TMB testing for physicians and provide insights for solutions to alleviate the barriers to TMB testing in oncology. Table 1. Barriers to TMB Test Adoption Reported by Physicians, % AllN=300 TMB userN=271 Non TMB userN=29 p-value Reimbursement Obtain prior authorizations 65.7 62.7 93.1 0.003 TMB not covered by insurance 53.7 53.5 55.2 >0.99 Coverage policy refers to TMB as "experimental"/"unproven" 52.7 51.7 62.1 0.26 Insurance policy restricts genomic tests to particular lab/test provider 51.3 50.6 58.6 0.79 Knowledge/awareness Unaware of therapy/clinical trials that may benefit a patient with mutation 68.3 66.1 89.7 0.03 Unaware of approved indications for TMB 51.3 51.3 51.7 >0.99 Lack of training on TMB 48.7 47.2 62.1 0.28 Logistics Test turnaround time 74.3 72.3 93.1 0.02 Difficulty obtaining biopsy 57.3 57.6 55.2 0.87 Inaccessibility to personnel/lab 49.0 48.3 55.2 0.84 Citation Format: Gieira Jones, Elizabeth Szamreta, Bianca Jackson, Ning Ning, Jennifer Stephens, Arif Hussain. Barriers to tumor mutational burden (TMB) testing in oncology care - U.S. Physician Survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 5167.

oncology
Significance of finding eperythrozoonosis in swine overstated.

T. Blackwell

Abstract:
Research opportunities in precision oncology: Perspectives on biospecimen and genomic data sharing from adults with cancer in Ireland

Shane O’Grady,Jessica C. Ralston,Eadaoin McKiernan,Frances J. Drummond,Jan Rynne,Derick Mitchell,William M. Gallagher,Amanda Drury,Walter Kolch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.27.24318092

2024-12-01

Abstract:Although surveys of people living with cancer in other nations have generally found a high degree of willingness to donate to research services such as genomic databases and biobanks, these results can vary from country to country. Additional questions also remain surrounding issues such as preferred model of consent, reporting of findings and concerns surrounding potential commercial application of health data. To address some of these gaps in our current knowledge, we collected responses from 176 people living with and beyond cancer in Ireland over a 16-month period. Twenty-eight percent of our survey respondents had previously donated a biological sample to research, with the majority indicating that they did so for altruistic reasons. We found that the vast majority of those who had not previously donated samples would do so if given the opportunity, suggesting that there is a significant untapped pool of potential sample donors, and increased efforts by researchers and clinicians to recruit these individuals, in an ethically acceptable way, could yield a substantial improvement in the availability of biological samples and data for research. There was also a strong preference among respondents for total transparency with personal health data, with the vast majority wanting to know of any risk factors identified in their genome, even if these risks were not medically actionable. A strong level of trust in both the clinical and scientific community was also observed in the responses, with most indicating that this played a major role in influencing their decision to donate. Finally, we found that although most respondents did not have issues with the involvement of a commercial entity in the donation process, there was still a sizeable percentage (26%) who did have some reservations.

Public and Global Health
Therapeutic Implications of Germline Testing in Patients With Advanced Cancers

Zsofia K Stadler,Anna Maio,Debyani Chakravarty,Yelena Kemel,Margaret Sheehan,Erin Salo-Mullen,Kaitlyn Tkachuk,Christopher J Fong,Bastien Nguyen,Amanda Erakky,Karen Cadoo,Ying Liu,Maria I Carlo,Alicia Latham,Hongxin Zhang,Ritika Kundra,Shaleigh Smith,Jesse Galle,Carol Aghajanian,Nadeem Abu-Rustum,Anna Varghese,Eileen M O'Reilly,Michael Morris,Wassim Abida,Michael Walsh,Alexander Drilon,Gowtham Jayakumaran,Ahmet Zehir,Marc Ladanyi,Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy,David B Solit,Nikolaus Schultz,Michael F Berger,Diana Mandelker,Luis A Diaz Jr,Kenneth Offit,Mark E Robson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.03661

2021-08-20

Abstract:Purpose: Tumor mutational profiling is increasingly performed in patients with advanced cancer. We determined the extent to which germline mutation profiling guides therapy selection in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing tumor genomic profiling were prospectively consented for germline cancer predisposition gene analysis (2015-2019). In patients harboring germline likely pathogenic or pathogenic (LP/P) alterations, therapeutic actionability was classified using a precision oncology knowledge base. Patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer receiving germline genotype-directed therapy were determined. Results: Among 11,947 patients across > 50 malignancies, 17% (n = 2,037) harbored a germline LP/P variant. By oncology knowledge base classification, 9% (n = 1042) had an LP/P variant in a gene with therapeutic implications (4% level 1; 4% level 3B; < 1% level 4). BRCA1/2 variants accounted for 42% of therapeutically actionable findings, followed by CHEK2 (13%), ATM (12%), mismatch repair genes (11%), and PALB2 (5%). When limited to the 9,079 patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer, 8% (n = 710) harbored level 1 or 3B genetic findings and 3.2% (n = 289) received germline genotype-directed therapy. Germline genotype-directed therapy was received by 61% and 18% of metastatic cancer patients with level 1 and level 3B findings, respectively, and by 54% of BRCA1/2, 75% of mismatch repair, 43% of PALB2, 35% of RAD51C/D, 24% of BRIP1, and 19% of ATM carriers. Of BRCA1/2 patients receiving a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, 45% (84 of 188) had tumors other than breast or ovarian cancer, wherein the drug, at time of delivery, was delivered in an investigational setting. Conclusion: In a pan-cancer analysis, 8% of patients with advanced cancer harbored a germline variant with therapeutic actionability with 40% of these patients receiving germline genotype-directed treatment. Germline sequence analysis is additive to tumor sequence analysis for therapy selection and should be considered for all patients with advanced cancer.
"What you're hearing from all of us is simplify the language": A focus group study on biomarker testing in oncology.

Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith,Ian Lee Ang,Rashmi Acharya,Tracy Moore,Sarah DeFeo,Caroline O'Brien,Emily Meichun Ko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13540

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13540 Background: In oncology, somatic biomarker testing is increasingly driving treatment decision-making. Exploration of patients’ understanding of, and perspectives on, biomarker testing has been limited, yet these are needed to improve health education and communication about biomarkers. Our objectives were to explore the perspectives of patients with gynecologic cancers on biomarker and genetic testing and to identify factors that influenced their decision-making on testing. Methods: Patients with gynecologic cancer enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania’s Biobank were invited to participate. Of the 82 patients contacted, 7 participated in 3 focus groups in fall 2023. Participants reviewed educational materials (pamphlet, slide set) about biomarker testing based on the Cancer Precision Medicine Commons’ patient education materials, explored understanding and perspectives around biomarker testing, and then discussed barriers and facilitators to testing. Thematic analyses by two researchers were performed using verbatim transcripts. Results: All patients strongly agreed that both genetic and biomarker testing were important after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and impacted their treatment options. However, patients did not understand what a biomarker was and expressed confusion over terms and testing methods, labeling unknown terms as “jargon.” 85% of participants had received germline genetic testing, and 85% received biomarker testing, with the remaining participants uncertain about testing status. Participants utilized a variety of resources such as the Internet, peer forums, articles on the patient portal, discussions with clinicians, and scientific papers to understand their cancer diagnosis and the role of genetic and biomarker testing. They mentioned fear (i.e., seeing low survival rates for ovarian cancer online as a “death sentence”) and financial circumstances as key barriers to accessing genetic or biomarker testing. Patients desired simple tailored written materials that were relevant from diagnosis to across the disease course. Conclusions: Patients understand the importance of biomarker testing in oncology but reported difficulties understanding existing resources. Current online resources had jargon and induced fear in some participants. Work to develop patient-centered resources on biomarker testing is needed.

oncology
Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Reporting Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Pathogenic Variants Identified in Research Germline Sequencing: A Prospective Interventional Study

Megan L Hutchcraft,Shulin Zhang,Nan Lin,Justine C Pickarski,Elizabeth A Belcher,Sainan Wei,Thèrése Bocklage,Rachel W Miller,John L Villano,Michael J Cavnar,Joseph Kim,Susanne M Arnold,Frederick R Ueland,Jill M Kolesar,Megan L. Hutchcraft,Justine C. Pickarski,Elizabeth A. Belcher,Rachel W. Miller,John L. Villano,Michael J. Cavnar,Susanne M. Arnold,Frederick R. Ueland,Jill M. Kolesar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/po.23.00266

2024-01-01

JCO Precision Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Patients with cancer frequently undergo research-grade germline sequencing but clinically actionable results are not routinely disclosed. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of reporting clinically relevant secondary findings (SF) identified in germline research sequencing using the institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) and the treating oncology physician. METHODS This prospective, interventional cohort study enrolled Total Cancer Care participants with any cancer diagnosis at a single institution. Patients underwent research-grade germline whole-exome sequencing, with bioinformatic analysis in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory to verify pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in any American College of Medical Genomics and Genetics SF v2.0 genes. After a protocol modification in consenting patients, the MTB reported PGVs to treating oncology physicians with recommendations for referral to a licensed genetic counselor and clinical confirmatory testing. RESULTS Of the 781 enrolled participants, 32 (4.1%) harbored cancer predisposition PGVs, 24 (3.1%) were heterozygous carriers of an autosomal recessive cancer predisposition syndrome, and 14 (1.8%) had other hereditary disease PGVs. Guideline-directed testing would have missed 37.5% (12/32) of the inherited cancer predisposition PGVs, which included BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH6, SDHAF2, SDHB, and TP53 variants. Three hundred fifteen participants consented to reporting results; results for all living patients were reported to the clinical team with half referred to a licensed genetic counselor. There was concordance between all research variants identified in patients (n = 9) who underwent clinical confirmatory sequencing. CONCLUSION MTB reporting of research-grade germline sequencing to the clinical oncology team is feasible. Over a third of PGVs identified using a universal testing strategy would have been missed by guideline-based approach, suggesting a role for expanding germline testing.

oncology
Secondary use of genomic data: patients' decisions at point of testing and perspectives to inform international data sharing

Melissa Martyn,Emily Forbes,Ling Lee,Anaita Kanga-Parabia,Rona Weerasuriya,Elly Lynch,Penny Gleeson,Clara Gaff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01531-5

2024-03-26

European Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract:International sharing of genomic data files arising from clinical testing of patients is essential to further improve genomic medicine. Whilst the general public are reluctant to donate DNA for research, the choices patients actually make about sharing their clinical genomic data for future re-use (research or clinical) are unknown. We ascertained the data-sharing choices of 1515 patients having genomic testing for inherited conditions or cancer treatment from clinical consent forms. To understand the experiences and preferences of these patients, surveys were administered after test consent (RR 73%). Almost all patients (98%) consented to share their data. Survey respondents' decision recall was high (90%), but poorer if English was an additional language ( p < 0.001). Parents deciding on behalf of children were over-represented amongst data-sharing decliners ( p = 0.047) and decliners were more likely to believe that stored data could be easily reidentified ( p < 0.001). A quarter of respondents did not know if reidentification would be easy and 44% of them were concerned about this possibility. Of those willing to share data overseas (60%), 23% indicated the recipient researcher's country would affect their decision. Most respondents (89%) desired some ongoing control over research use of their data. Four preliminary data-sharing profiles emerged; their further development could inform tailored patient resources. Our results highlight considerations for establishment of systems to make clinical genomic data files available for reanalysis locally and across borders. Patients' willingness to share their data – and value of the resulting research – should encourage clinical laboratories to consider sharing data systematically for secondary uses.

genetics & heredity,biochemistry & molecular biology
Challenges in patient-centered germline testing delivery for veterans with advanced prostate cancer (APC).

Daniel H Kwon,Marissa McPhaul,Eliza Hearst,Saffanat Sumra,Carling Jade Ursem,Evan Justin Walker,Maren Theresa Scheuner,Sunny Wang,Rahul Raj Aggarwal,Franklin W. Huang,Jeffrey Belkora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.71

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:71 Background: In a quest to tailor care to tumor biology, oncologists now offer germline testing to all patients with APC. We explored the degree to which germline testing decisions reflect patient preferences about potential benefits and harms discussed by oncologists. Methods: We conducted a prospective qualitative study of consecutive patients with APC who were offered germline testing at an oncology visit at the San Francisco VA. We audio-recorded visits and conducted semi-structured interviews using a theory-informed guide with patients after their visit to understand their decision-making process for germline testing. We analyzed the interviews using the Critical Incident Technique to identify positive or negative deviations from well-informed, preference-based decisions. We also reviewed consent documentation in the electronic health record. Results: Of 61 patients approached, 30 completed interviews after their germline testing discussion. Mean age was 75y; 19 (63%) were White, 9 (30%) Black, and 2 (6%) Other race; and 13 (43%) were service-connected for APC. Twenty-six (87%) patients consented to germline testing; the primary reasons were altruistic (to help family and contribute to knowledge). Four patients (13%) declined testing, all primarily due to the fear of potential loss or reduction of service-connected benefits. All four patients reported they would reconsider testing if assured that these benefits would be protected regardless of test results. Of the four patients, two had initially consented to testing with their oncologist but later changed their minds and did not notify anyone. The two patients received germline testing when they underwent PSA testing, but they were not aware that they had germline testing performed. Both had negative test results, and they therefore did not experience threats to their service-connected benefits. Conclusions: Some Veterans with service-connected benefits for APC decline germline testing due to the fear of potential loss or reduction of these benefits, thereby foregoing potential treatment benefits. An advisory board is working with the Veterans Benefits Administration to protect service-connected benefits for these Veterans. In addition, a few Veterans may agree to germline testing with their oncologist, but then change their minds due to concerns surrounding service-connected benefits. From a quality improvement perspective, the experiences of the patients in this study who changed their minds counts as a near-miss. Although uptake of germline testing was high in this cohort, current workflows may need to be addressed to account for a change of heart, and further research is needed to understand root causes and identify possible remedies of the near-misses. Overall, our findings illustrate the importance of informed consent for germline testing to ensure that results are desired and valued by both oncologist and patient.

oncology
Understanding perceptions of tumor genomic profile testing in Black/African American cancer patients in a qualitative study: the role of medical mistrust, provider communication, and family support

Caseem C Luck,Sarah Bauerle Bass,Yana Chertock,Patrick J A Kelly,Katie Singley,Ariel Hoadley,Michael J Hall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-024-00700-3

Abstract:Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) examines genes and somatic mutations specific to a patient's tumor to identify targets for cancer treatments but can also uncover secondary hereditary (germline) mutations. Most patients are unprepared to make complex decisions related to this information. Black/African American (AA) cancer patients are especially at risk because of lower health literacy, higher levels of medical mistrust, and lower awareness and knowledge of genetic testing. But little is known about their TGP attitudes or preferences. Five in-person focus groups were conducted with Black/AA cancer patients (N = 33) from an NCI-designated cancer center and an affiliated oncology unit in an urban safety-net hospital located in Philadelphia. Focus groups explored participants' understanding of TGP, cultural beliefs about genetics, medical mistrust, and how these perceptions informed decision-making. Participants were mostly female (81.8%), and one-third had some college education; mean age was 57 with a SD of 11.35. Of patients, 33.3% reported never having heard of TGP, and 48.5% were not aware of having had TGP as part of their cancer treatment. Qualitative analysis was guided by the principles of applied thematic analysis and yielded five themes: (1) mistrust of medical institutions spurring independent health-information seeking; (2) genetic testing results as both empowering and overwhelming; (3) how provider-patient communication can obviate medical mistrust; (4) how unsupportive patient-family communication undermines interest in secondary-hereditary risk communication; and (5) importance of developing centralized patient support systems outside of treatment decisions. Results improve understanding of how Black/AA patients perceive of TGP and how interventions can be developed to assist with making informed decisions about secondary hereditary results.
Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated with Genetic Testing among Cancer Survivors: Evidence from Three Cancer Registries

Young-Rock Hong,Ruixuan Wang,Guanming Chen,Mishal Khan,Susan Vadaparampil,Jiang Bian,Thomas J George,Dejana Braithwaite

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000540341

Public Health Genomics

Abstract:Introduction: Genetic tests, including germline and tumor (somatic) testing, can optimize the clinical care and outcomes for cancer patients and their family members. However, evidence on cancer patients' use of genetic testing and discussions about it with healthcare providers is limited. Methods: Study participants included cancer survivors aged 18 or older, drawn from the 2021 Health Information and National Trends Survey (HINTS)-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) linked database, which comprises three US cancer registries: Iowa, New Mexico, and the Greater Bay Area. Sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, sex, income, education) at the time of the survey and clinical characteristics (e.g., cancer site, stage) at the time of diagnosis were compared based on self-reported genetic testing status and provider discussions, using survey design-adjusted analysis. Results: The weighted study sample comprised 415,978 cancer survivors with a mean age of 70.5 years at the time of the survey. Overall, 17.0% reported having germline testing, 8.5% having tumor testing, and 8.6% discussing tumor testing with their healthcare providers. Higher proportions of germline genetic testing were observed among survivors under age 65 at the time of the survey, females, holding college degrees, and with private insurance coverage compared to their respective counterparts - males, aged 65 or above when surveyed, with lower educational attainment, and with public insurance or uninsured. The proportion of those who reported tumor testing was greater for those diagnosed in recent years (2015-2017 vs. before 2002). Regarding clinical characteristics, survivors with ovarian and breast cancers had a 7.0-36.4% higher prevalence of both testing compared to those with other cancer types lacking germline indication. More cancer survivors diagnosed at distant stages (vs. regional) or between 2015 and 2017 (vs. 2003-2010) reported having provider discussions about tumor testing. Conclusion: Findings showed that the highest reports of germline testing were among young female cancer survivors and those with higher education and private insurance. Survivors diagnosed in recent years or with advanced-stage disease were more likely to report discussing tumor testing with providers. Further research is warranted to better understand the barriers and educational needs of cancer patients, caregivers, and providers to optimize genetic testing strategies.
Cancer Sample Biobanking at the Next Level: Combining Tissue With Living Cell Repositories to Promote Precision Medicine

Hella A. Bolck,Chantal Pauli,Elisabeth Göbel,Katharina Mühlbauer,Susanne Dettwiler,Holger Moch,Peter Schraml

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2019.00246

IF: 5.5

2019-10-22

Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology

Abstract:Biorespositories of formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) or fresh frozen human tissues from malignant diseases generated as integral part of the diagnostic workup in many pathology departments have been pivotal resources for translational cancer studies. However, such tissue biobanks have traditionally contained only non-viable specimens and thus cannot enable functional assays for the discovery and validation of therapeutic targets or the assessment of drug responses and resistance to treatment. To overcome these limitations, we have developed a next-generation comprehensive biobanking platform that includes the generation of patient-derived in vitro cell models from colorectal, pancreatic and kidney cancers among others. As such patient-derived cell (PDC) models retain important features of the original human tumors, they have emerged as relevant tools for more dynamic clinical and experimental analyses of cancer. Here, we describe details of the complex processes of acquisition and processing of patient-derived samples, propagation, annotation, characterization and distribution of resulting cell models and emphasize the requirements of quality assurance, organizational considerations and investment into resources. Taken together, we show how clinical tissue collections can be taken to the next level thus promising major new opportunities for understanding and treating cancer in the context of precision medicine.

cell biology,developmental biology
Evolving assessment pathways for precision oncology medicines to improve patient access: a tumor-agnostic lens

Priscila Radu,Gayathri Kumar,Amanda Cole,Aikaterini Fameli,Mark Guthrie,Lieven Annemans,Jan Geissler,Antoine Italiano,Brian O’Rourke,Entela Xoxi,Lotte Steuten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae060

2024-04-17

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Background Genomic and molecular alterations are increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, and scientific advances are opening new treatment avenues. Precision oncology (PO) uses a patient’s genomic profile to determine optimal treatment, promising fewer side effects and higher success rates. Within PO, tumor-agnostic (TA) therapies target genomic alterations irrespective of tumor location. However, traditional value frameworks and approval pathways pose challenges which may limit patient access to PO therapies. Objectives This study describes challenges in assessing PO and TA medicines, explores possible solutions, and provides actionable recommendations to facilitate an iterative life-cycle assessment of these medicines. Methods After reviewing the published literature, we obtained insights from key stakeholders and European experts across a range of disciplines, through individual interviews and an industry workshop. The research was guided and refined by an international expert committee through 2 sounding board meetings. Results The current challenges faced by PO and TA medicines are multiple and can be demonstrated through real-world examples of the current barriers and opportunities. A life-cycle approach to assessment should be taken, including key actions at the early stages of evidence generation, regulatory and reimbursement stage, as well as payment and adoption solutions that make use of the evolving evidence base. Working toward these solutions to maximize PO medicine value is a shared responsibility and stands to benefit all stakeholders. Conclusions Our call to action is to expand access to comprehensive genomic testing, foster a learning health care system, enable fast and equitable access to cost-effective treatments, and ultimately improve health outcomes.

oncology
TRACEBACK: Testing of Historical Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Patients for Hereditary Risk Genes as a Cancer Prevention Strategy in Family Members

Rachel Delahunty,Linh Nguyen,Stuart Craig,Belinda Creighton,Dinuka Ariyaratne,Dale W. Garsed,Elizabeth Christie,Sian Fereday,Lesley Andrews,Alexandra Lewis,Sharne Limb,Ahwan Pandey,Joy Hendley,Nadia Traficante,Natalia Carvajal,Amanda B. Spurdle,Bryony Thompson,Michael T. Parsons,Victoria Beshay,Mila Volcheck,Timothy Semple,Richard Lupat,Kenneth Doig,Jiaan Yu,Xiao Qing Chen,Anna Marsh,Christopher Love,Sanela Bilic,Maria Beilin,Cassandra B. Nichols,Christina Greer,Yeh Chen Lee,Susan Gerty,Lynette Gill,Emma Newton,Julie Howard,Rachel Williams,Christie Norris,Andrew N. Stephens,Erin Tutty,Courtney Smyth,Shona O'Connell,Thomas Jobling,Colin J.R. Stewart,Adeline Tan,Stephen B. Fox,Nicholas Pachter,Jason Li,Jason Ellul,Gisela Mir Arnau,Mary-Anne Young,Louisa Gordon,Laura Forrest,Marion Harris,Karen Livingstone,Jane Hill,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Paul A. Cohen,Penelope M. Webb,Michael Friedlander,Paul James,David Bowtell,Kathryn Alsop,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.21.02108

IF: 45.3

2022-03-09

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Tubo-ovarian cancer (TOC) is a sentinel cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs). Identification of a PV in the first member of a family at increased genetic risk (the proband) provides opportunities for cancer prevention in other at-risk family members. Although Australian testing rates are now high, PVs in patients with TOC whose diagnosis predated revised testing guidelines might have been missed. We assessed the feasibility of detecting PVs in this population to enable genetic risk reduction in relatives. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this pilot study, deceased probands were ascertained from research cohort studies, identification by a relative, and gynecologic oncology clinics. DNA was extracted from archival tissue or stored blood for panel sequencing of 10 risk-associated genes. Testing of deceased probands ascertained through clinic records was performed with a consent waiver. RESULTS We identified 85 PVs in 84 of 787 (11%) probands. Familial contacts of 39 of 60 (65%) deceased probands with an identified recipient (60 of 84; 71%) have received a written notification of results, with follow-up verbal contact made in 85% (33 of 39). A minority of families (n = 4) were already aware of the PV. For many (29 of 33; 88%), the genetic result provided new information and referral to a genetic service was accepted in most cases (66%; 19 of 29). Those who declined referral (4 of 29) were all male next of kin whose family member had died more than 10 years before. CONCLUSION We overcame ethical and logistic challenges to demonstrate that retrospective genetic testing to identify PVs in previously untested deceased probands with TOC is feasible. Understanding reasons for a family member's decision to accept or decline a referral will be important for guiding future TRACEBACK projects.

oncology

[When should standard treatment not be applied for the tuberculosis patient?].

Laboratory Practices, Potentiality, and Material Patienthood in Genomic Cancer Medicine

Translating potential germline findings from tumour profiling into routine clinical care.

Multivalent liposome-based vaccines containing different serosubtypes of PorA protein induce cross-protective bactericidal immune responses against Neisseria meningitidis.

Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery

Experiences across a genetic screening and testing programme pathway: a qualitative study of mammogram patient perspectives

Parents' and patients' perspectives, experiences, and preferences for germline genetic or genomic testing of children with cancer: A systematic review

Ascorbimetry, the determination of ferric iron and cupric copper content of certain vegetables.

Abstract 5167: Barriers to tumor mutational burden (TMB) testing in oncology care - U.S. Physician Survey

Significance of finding eperythrozoonosis in swine overstated.

Research opportunities in precision oncology: Perspectives on biospecimen and genomic data sharing from adults with cancer in Ireland

Therapeutic Implications of Germline Testing in Patients With Advanced Cancers

"What you're hearing from all of us is simplify the language": A focus group study on biomarker testing in oncology.

Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Reporting Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Pathogenic Variants Identified in Research Germline Sequencing: A Prospective Interventional Study

Secondary use of genomic data: patients' decisions at point of testing and perspectives to inform international data sharing

Challenges in patient-centered germline testing delivery for veterans with advanced prostate cancer (APC).

Understanding perceptions of tumor genomic profile testing in Black/African American cancer patients in a qualitative study: the role of medical mistrust, provider communication, and family support

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated with Genetic Testing among Cancer Survivors: Evidence from Three Cancer Registries

Cancer Sample Biobanking at the Next Level: Combining Tissue With Living Cell Repositories to Promote Precision Medicine

Evolving assessment pathways for precision oncology medicines to improve patient access: a tumor-agnostic lens

TRACEBACK: Testing of Historical Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Patients for Hereditary Risk Genes as a Cancer Prevention Strategy in Family Members