Genomic testing in cancer: patient knowledge, attitudes, and expectations

BACKGROUND

Genomic testing in cancer (GTC) characterizes genes that play an important role in the development and growth of a patient's cancer. This form of DNA testing is currently being studied for its ability to guide cancer therapy. The objective of the current study was to describe patients' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations toward GTC.

METHODS

A 42-item self-administered GTC questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary group and patient pretesting. The questionnaire was distributed to patients with advanced cancer who were referred to the Princess Margaret Cancer Center for a phase 1 clinical trial or GTC testing.

RESULTS

Results were reported from 98 patients with advanced cancer, representing 66% of the patients surveyed. Seventy-six percent of patients were interested in learning more about GTC, and 64% reported that GTC would significantly improve their cancer care. The median score on a 12-item questionnaire to assess knowledge of cancer genomics was 8 of 12 items correct (67%; interquartile range, 7-9 of 12 items correct [58%-75%]). Scores were associated significantly with patients' education level (P < .0001). Sixty-six percent of patients would consent to a needle biopsy, and 39% would consent to an invasive surgical biopsy if required for GTC. Only 48% of patients reported having sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision to pursue GTC whereas 34% of patients indicated a need for formal genetic counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced cancer are motivated to participate in GTC. Patients require further education to understand the difference between somatic and germline mutations in the context of GTC. Educational programs are needed to support patients interested in pursuing GTC.

Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia-based deliberative method

Background

The design of health technologies relies on assumptions that affect how they will be implemented, such as intended use, complexity, impact on user autonomy, and appropriateness. Those who design and implement technologies make several ethical and social assumptions on behalf of users and society more broadly, but there are very few tools to examine prospectively whether such assumptions are warranted and how the public define and appraise the desirability of health innovations. This study protocol describes a three-year study that relies on a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations that will enable a critical examination of the social and ethical issues of health technology design.

Methods

The first two steps of our mixed-method study were completed: relying on a literature review and the support of our multidisciplinary expert committee, we developed scenarios depicting social and technical changes that could unfold in three thematic areas within a 25-year timeframe; and for each thematic area, we created video clips to illustrate prospective technologies and short stories to describe their associated dilemmas. Using this multimedia material, we will: conduct four face-to-face deliberative workshops with members of the public (n = 40) who will later join additional participants (n = 25) through an asynchronous online forum; and analyze and integrate three data sources: observation, group deliberations, and a self-administered participant survey.

Discussion

This study protocol will be of interest to those who design and assess public involvement initiatives and to those who examine the implementation of health innovations. Our premise is that using user-friendly tools in a deliberative context that foster participants’ creativity and reflexivity in pondering potential technoscientific futures will enable our team to analyze a range of normative claims, including some that may prove problematic and others that may shed light over potentially more valuable design options. This research will help fill an important knowledge gap; intervening earlier in technological development could help reduce undesirable effects and inform the design and implementation of more appropriate innovations.

Citizen expectations of 'academic entrepreneurship' in health research: public science, practical benefit

BACKGROUND

Responsiveness to citizens as users of technological innovation helps motivate translational research and commercial engagement among academics. Yet, retaining citizen trust and support for research encourages caution in pursuit of commercial science.

OBJECTIVES

We explore citizen expectations of the specifically academic nature of commercial science [i.e. academic entrepreneurship (AE)] and the influence of conflict of interest concerns, hopes about practical benefits and general beliefs.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a cross-sectional national opinion survey of 1002 Canadians online in 2010.

RESULTS

Approval of AE was moderate (mean 3.2/5, SD 0.84), but varied by entrepreneurial activity. Concern about conflict of interests (COI) was moderate (mean 2.9/5, SD 0.86) and varied by type of concern. An ordinary least-squares regression showed that expectations of practical benefits informed support for AE, specifically that academic-industry collaboration can better address real-world problems; conflict of interest concerns were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that citizens support AE for its potential to produce practical benefits, but enthusiasm varies and is reduced for activities that may prioritize private over public interests. Further, support exists despite concern about COI, perhaps due to trust in the academic research context. For user engagement in research priority setting, these findings suggest the need to attend to the commercial nature of translational science. For research policy, they suggest the need for governance arrangements for responsible innovation, which can sustain public trust in academic research, and realize the practical benefits that inform public support for AE.

Parents' perspectives on participating in genetic research in autism

Genetic research in autism depends on the willingness of individuals with autism to participate; thus, there is a duty to assess participants' needs in the research process. We report on families' motives and expectations related to their participation in autism genetic research. Respondents valued having a genetic result, as it alleviates guilt, promotes awareness, and may be used to tailor interventions and for family planning. The act of participating was distinctly significant, as it provided personal control, a connection to autism experts, networking with families, and hope for the future. The results of this study highlight complex factors involved in families' decisions to participate in autism genetic research and provide points to consider for this population of research participants.

Primary care role in expanded newborn screening: After the heel prick test

OBJECTIVE

To examine the role of primary care providers in informing and supporting families who receive positive screening results.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Ontario.

PARTICIPANTS

Family physicians, pediatricians, and midwives involved in newborn care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Beliefs, practices, and barriers related to providing information to families who receive positive screening results for their newborns.

RESULTS

A total of 819 providers participated (adjusted response rate of 60.9%). Of the respondents, 67.4% to 81.0% agreed that it was their responsibility to provide care to families of newborns who received positive screening results, and 64.2% to 84.8% agreed they should provide brochures or engage in general discussions about the identified conditions. Of the pediatricians, 67.3% endorsed having detailed discussions with families, but only 24.1% of family physicians and 27.6% of midwives endorsed this practice. All provider groups reported less involvement in information provision than they believed they should have. This discrepancy was most evident for family physicians: most stated that they should provide brochures (64.2%) or engage in general discussions (73.5%), but only a minority did so (15.3% and 27.7%, respectively). Family physicians reported insufficient time (42.2%), compensation (52.2%), and training (72.3%) to play this role, and only a minority agreed they were up to date (18.5%) or confident (16.5%) regarding newborn screening.

CONCLUSION

Providers of primary newborn care see an information-provision role for themselves in caring for families who receive positive newborn screening results. Efforts to further define the scope of this role combined with efforts to mitigate existing barriers are warranted.

Do canadian researchers and the lay public prioritize biomedical research outcomes equally? A choice experiment

PURPOSE

To quantify and compare the preferences of researchers and laypeople in Canada regarding the outcomes of basic biomedical research.

METHOD

In autumn 2010, the authors conducted a cross-sectional, national survey of basic biomedical researchers funded by Canada's national health research agency and a representative sample of Canadian citizens to assess preferences for research outcomes across five attributes using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes included advancing scientific knowledge (assessed by published papers); building research capacity (assessed by trainees); informing decisions in the health products industry (assessed by patents); targeting economic, health, or scientific priorities; and cost. The authors reduced a fractional factorial design (18 pairwise choices plus an opt-out option) to three blocks of six. They also computed part worth utilities, differences in predicted probabilities, and willingness-to-pay values using nested logit models.

RESULTS

Of 3,260 potential researchers, 1,749 (53.65% response rate) completed the questionnaire, along with 1,002 citizens. Researchers and citizens prioritized high-quality scientific outcomes (papers, trainees) over other attributes. Both groups disvalued research targeted at economic priorities relative to health priorities. Researchers granted a premium to proposals targeting scientific priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Citizens and researchers fundamentally prioritized the same outcomes for basic biomedical research. Notably, they prioritized traditional scientific outcomes and disvalued the pursuit of economic returns. These findings have implications for how academic medicine assigns incentives and value to basic health research and how biomedical researchers and the public may jointly contribute to setting the future research agenda.

Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study

OBJECTIVES

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) panels have expanded to include conditions for which treatment effects are less certain, creating debate about population-based screening criteria. We investigated Canadian public expectations and values regarding the types of conditions that should be included in NBS and whether parents should provide consent.

METHODS

Eight focus groups (FG; n = 60) included education, deliberative discussion and pre-/post-questionnaires. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.

RESULTS

Quantitatively, the majority supported NBS for serious disorders for which treatment is not available (95-98, 82%). A majority endorsed screening without explicit consent (77-88%) for treatable disorders, but 62% supported unpressured choice for screening for untreatable disorders. Qualitatively, participants valued treatment-related benefits for infants and informational benefits for families. Concern for anxiety, stigma and unwanted knowledge depended upon disease context and strength of countervailing benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipated benefits of expanded infant screening were prioritized over harms, with information provision perceived as a mechanism for mitigating harms and enabling choice. However, we urge caution around the potential for public enthusiasm to foster unlimited uptake of infant screening technologies.

Health-care providers' views on pursuing reproductive benefit through newborn screening: the case of sickle cell disorders

Newborn screening (NBS) programs aim to identify affected infants before the onset of treatable disorders. Historically, benefits to the family and society were considered secondary to this clinical benefit; yet, recent discourse defending expanded NBS has argued that screening can in part be justified by secondary benefits, such as learning reproductive risk information to support family planning ('reproductive benefit'). Despite increased attention to these secondary benefits of NBS, stakeholders' values remain unknown. We report a mixed methods study that included an examination of providers' views toward the pursuit of reproductive risk information through NBS, using sickle cell disorder carrier status as an example. We surveyed a stratified random sample of 1615 providers in Ontario, and interviewed 42 providers across 7 disciplines. A majority endorsed the identification of reproductive risks as a goal of NBS (74-77%). Providers' dominant rationale was that knowledge of carrier status is an important and inherent benefit of NBS as it allows people to make reproductive choices, which is consistent with the goals of disease prevention. However, some challenged its appropriateness, questioning its logic, timing and impact on disease prevention. Others were sensitive to intruding on individuals' choices or children's independent rights. While the dominant view is consistent with discourse defending expanded NBS, it deviates from the traditional screening principles that underpin most public health interventions. Broader discussion of the balance between benefits to screened individuals and those to families and societies, in the context of public health programs, is needed.

How do medical device manufacturers' websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations

While every health care system stakeholder would seem to be concerned with obtaining the greatest value from a given technology, there is often a disconnect in the perception of value between a technology's promoters and those responsible for the ultimate decision as to whether or not to pay for it. Adopting an empirical ethics approach, this paper examines how five Canadian medical device manufacturers, via their websites, frame the corporate "value proposition" of their innovation and seek to respond to what they consider the key expectations of their customers. Our analysis shows that the manufacturers' framing strategies combine claims that relate to valuable socio-technical goals and features such as prevention, efficiency, sense of security, real-time feedback, ease of use and flexibility, all elements that likely resonate with a large spectrum of health care system stakeholders. The websites do not describe, however, how the innovations may impact health care delivery and tend to obfuscate the decisional trade-offs these innovations represent from a health care system perspective. Such framing strategies, we argue, tend to bolster physicians' and patients' expectations and provide a large set of stakeholders with powerful rhetorical tools that may influence the health policy arena. Because these strategies are difficult to counter given the paucity of evidence and its limited use in policymaking, establishing sound collective health care priorities will require solid critiques of how certain kinds of medical devices may provide a better (i.e., more valuable) response to health care needs when compared to others.

Citizens' values regarding research with stored samples from newborn screening in Canada

OBJECTIVES

Newborn screening (NBS) programs may store bloodspot samples and use them for secondary purposes. Recent public controversies and lawsuits over storage and secondary uses underscore the need to engage the public on these issues. We explored Canadian values regarding storage and use of NBS samples for various purposes and the forms of parental choice for anonymous research with NBS samples.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods, public engagement study comprising 8 focus groups (n = 60), an educational component, deliberative discussion, and pre- and post-questionnaires assessing knowledge and values toward storage and parental choice.

RESULTS

Canadian citizens supported the storage of NBS samples for quality control, confirmatory diagnosis, and future anonymous research (>90%). There was broad support for use of NBS samples for anonymous research; however, opinions were split about the extent of parental decision-making. Support for a "routinized" approach rested on trust in authorities, lack of concern for harms, and an assertion that the population's interest took priority over the interests of individuals. Discomfort stemmed from distrust in authorities, concern for harms, and prioritizing individual interests, which supported more substantive parental choice. Consensus emerged regarding the need for greater transparency about the storage and secondary use of samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides novel insights into the values that underpin citizens' acceptance and discomfort with routine storage of NBS samples for research, and supports the need to develop well-designed methods of public education and civic discourse on the risks and benefits of the retention and secondary use of NBS samples.

The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience

BACKGROUND

Increased availability of genetic testing is changing the primary care role in cancer genetics. The perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their role in support of genetic testing has been explored, but little is known about the expectations of patients or the PCP role once genetic test results are received.

METHODS

Two sets of open-ended semi-structured interviews were completed with patients (N=25) in a cancer genetic programme in Ontario, Canada, within 4 months of receiving genetic test results and 1 year later; written reports of test results were collected.

RESULTS

Patients expected PCPs to play a role in referral for genetic testing; they hoped that PCPs would have sufficient knowledge to appreciate familial risk and supportive attitudes towards genetic testing. Patients had more difficulty in identifying a PCP role following receipt of genetic test results; cancer patients in particular emphasized this as a role for cancer specialists. Still, some patients anticipated an ongoing PCP role comprising risk-appropriate surveillance or reassurance, especially as specialist care diminished. These expectations were complicated by occasional confusion regarding the ongoing care appropriate to genetic test results.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential PCP role in cancer genetics is quite broad. Patients expect PCPs to play a role in risk identification and genetics referral. In addition, some patients anticipated an ongoing role for their PCPs after receiving genetic test results. Sustained efforts will be needed to support PCPs in this expansive role if best use is to be made of investments in cancer genetic services.

Reconsidering reproductive benefit through newborn screening: a systematic review of guidelines on preconception, prenatal and newborn screening

The expansion of newborn screening (NBS) has been accompanied by debate about what benefits should be achieved and the role of parental discretion in their pursuit. The opportunity to inform parents of reproductive risks is among the most valued additional benefits gained through NBS, and assumes prominence where the primary goal of identifying a treatable condition is not assured. We reviewed 53 unique guidelines addressing prenatal, preconception and newborn screening to examine: (1) how generating reproductive risk information is construed as a benefit of screening; and (2) what conditions support the realization of this benefit. Most preconception and prenatal guidelines - where generating reproductive risk information is described as a primary benefit - required that individuals be given a 'cascade of choices', ensuring that each step in the decision-making process was well informed, from deciding to pursue information about reproductive risks to deciding how to manage them. With the exception of three guidelines, NBS policy infrequently attended to the potential for reproductive benefits; further, most guidelines that acknowledged such benefits construed voluntarism narrowly, without attention to the choices attendant on receiving reproductive risk information. This review suggests that prenatal and preconception guidance identifies a coherent framework to support the pursuit of reproductive benefits through population screening programmes. Interestingly, attention to reproductive benefits is increasing among NBS guidance, yet reflection on how such benefits ought to be pursued remains limited. Traditional norms for NBS may require reconsideration where the remit of screening exceeds the primary goal of clinical benefits for infants.

Clinical obligations and public health programmes: healthcare provider reasoning about managing the incidental results of newborn screening

BACKGROUND

Expanded newborn screening generates incidental results, notably carrier results. Yet newborn screening programmes typically restrict parental choice regarding receipt of this non-health serving genetic information. Healthcare providers play a key role in educating families or caring for screened infants and have strong beliefs about the management of incidental results.

METHODS

To inform policy on disclosure of infant sickle cell disorder (SCD) carrier results, a mixed-methods study of healthcare providers was conducted in Ontario, Canada, to understand attitudes regarding result management using a cross-sectional survey (N = 1615) and semistructured interviews (N = 42).

RESULTS

Agreement to reasons favouring disclosure of SCD carrier results was high (65.1%-92.7%) and to reasons opposing disclosure was low (4.1%-18.1%). Genetics professionals expressed less support for arguments favouring disclosure (35.3%-78.8%), and more agreement with arguments opposing disclosure (15.7%-51.9%). A slim majority of genetics professionals (51.9%) agreed that a reason to avoid disclosure was the importance of allowing the child to decide to receive results. Qualitatively, there was a perceived "duty" to disclose, that if the clinician possessed the information, the clinician could not withhold it.

DISCUSSION

While a majority of respondents perceived a duty to disclose the incidental results of newborn screening, the policy implications of these attitudes are not obvious. In particular, policy must balance descriptive ethics (ie, what providers believe) and normative ethics (ie, what duty-based principles oblige), address dissenting opinion and consider the relevance of moral principles grounded in clinical obligations for public health initiatives.

The complex promise of newborn screening

Newborn screening has been practised as a form of preventive medicine since the 1960s, and has attracted increased attention in recent years as technological capacities expand. Like other emerging economies, India faces pressure to expand infant screening, though developments have been halting. The promise of newborn screening is the reduction of infant mortality and morbidity from a host of rare, typically genetic, disorders. Deciding what priority should be placed on the realisation of this promise, together with the practical challenge of coordinating the screening enterprise, requires the use of decision making frameworks that address both clinical criteria and values conflicts. Frameworks for public health ethics can aid sound policy development in India, and help to inform the larger international debate about the expansion and benefits of NBS.

Informing parents about expanded newborn screening: influences on provider involvement

OBJECTIVE

Expanded newborn screening (NBS) identifies some disorders for which clinical benefit is uncertain, as well as "incidental" findings (eg, carrier status), thus enhancing the need to inform parents about NBS before sample collection.

METHODS

A self-complete survey was sent to a cross-sectional, stratified, random sample of 5 provider groups in Ontario (obstetricians, midwives, family physicians, pediatricians, and nurses). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the effects of core beliefs, perceived barriers, and demographic characteristics on the reported frequency of informing parents about NBS before sample collection.

RESULTS

Virtually all of the midwives and almost half of the nurses reported discussing NBS with parents, whereas less than one sixth of the physicians did so. Providers who perceived a responsibility to inform parents were 3 times more likely to report doing so than those who did not perceive this responsibility (odds ratio: 2.9 [95% confidence interval: 2.1-4.1]). Those who lacked confidence to inform parents were 70% less likely to discuss NBS with parents compared with those who did not experience this cognitive barrier (odds ratio: 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.4]). Controlling for these covariates, family physicians and obstetricians were more likely than pediatricians to inform parents.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide guidance for capacity building among providers who are positioned to inform parents about NBS before sample collection. Our findings call for targeted educational interventions that consider patterns of provider practice related to prenatal and NBS care, seek to redress confidence limitations, and engage key provider groups in the importance of this professional responsibility.

Postal survey of physicians and laboratories: practices and perceptions of molecular oncology testing

Background

Molecular oncology testing (MOT) to detect genomic alterations underlying cancer holds promise for improved cancer care. Yet knowledge limitations regarding the delivery of testing services may constrain the translation of scientific advancements into effective health care.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, postal survey of active cancer physicians in Ontario, Canada (N = 611) likely to order MOT, and cancer laboratories (N = 99) likely to refer (i.e., referring laboratories) or conduct (i.e., testing laboratories) MOT in 2006, to assess respondents' perceptions of the importance and accessibility of MOT and their preparedness to provide it.

Results

54% of physicians, 63% of testing laboratories and 60% of referring laboratories responded. Most perceived MOT to be important for treatment, diagnosis or prognosis now, and in 5 years (61% – 100%). Yet only 45% of physicians, 59% of testing labs and 53% of referring labs agreed that patients in their region were receiving MOT that is indicated as a standard of care. Physicians and laboratories perceived various barriers to providing MOT, including, among 70% of physicians, a lack of clear guidelines regarding clinical indications, and among laboratories, a lack of funding (73% – 100%). Testing laboratories were confident of their ability to determine whether and which MOT was indicated (77% and 82% respectively), and perceived that key elements of formal and continuing education were helpful (75% – 100%). By contrast, minorities of physicians were confident of their ability to assess whether and which MOT was indicated (46% and 34% respectively), and while majorities considered various continuing educational resources helpful (68% – 75%), only minorities considered key elements of formal education helpful in preparing for MOT (17% – 43%).

Conclusion

Physicians and laboratory professionals were enthusiastic about the value of MOT for cancer care but most did not believe patients were gaining adequate access to clinically necessary testing. Further, our results suggest that many were ill equipped as individual stakeholders, or as a coordinated system of referral and interpretation, to provide MOT. These challenges should inspire educational, training and other interventions to ensure that developments in molecular oncology can result in optimal cancer care.