Effectively communicating comprehensive tumor genomic profiling results: Mitigating uncertainty for advanced cancer patients

Understanding communication between patients and healthcare professionals regarding comprehensive biomarker testing in precision oncology: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology, using comprehensive biomarker testing (cBT) to inform individual cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, includes increasingly complex technology and clinical data sets. People impacted by cancer (patients and caregivers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) face distinct challenges in navigating the cBT and personalized treatment landscape. This review summarizes evidence regarding cBT-related communication between people impacted by cancer and HCPs and identifies important avenues for future research in precision oncology.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using records published in PubMed during January 2017-August 2022, focusing on the breadth of topics on patient-HCP communication and knowledge resources used by HCPs as guidance in cBT-related communication. Data were extracted from records meeting inclusion criteria, and findings were summarized according to main topics.

RESULTS

The search identified 287 unique records and data were extracted from 42 records, including nine from expert input. Most records originated from the United States included patients with different types of cancer, and oncologists were the main HCPs. Patients' motivation for undergoing cBT and receiving results was generally high in different settings. However, patients' understanding of cBT-related concepts was limited, and their knowledge and information preferences changed based on cBT implications and significance to family members. HCPs were valued by patients as a trusted source of information. Limited evidence was available on HCPs' information-seeking behavior and factors influencing cBT-related knowledge and confidence, often self-reported as insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education by knowledgeable and confident HCPs, information management and a caring patient-HCP relationship communicating continuity of care regardless of cBT results are crucial to empower patients and shared decision-making in precision oncology. More data on the process and structure of cBT-related communication, distinction between and characterization of different timepoints of patient-HCP interactions are needed.

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study

Purpose

The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach.

Results

We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment.

Conclusion

Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results.

Further validation of the Perceptions of Uncertainties in Genome Sequencing (PUGS) scale among patients with cancer undergoing tumor sequencing

It is important to understand how individuals perceive uncertainties and the consequent impact on their psychological well-being and health behavior. The Perceptions of Uncertainty in Genome Sequencing (PUGS) scale measures clinical, affective, and evaluative uncertainties about information from sequencing. The PUGS scale has been shown to be valid and reliable among individuals receiving results about their genomes. This study assessed whether its validity generalized to patients with cancer undergoing tumor sequencing. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on data from the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (n=310) to identify a measurement model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the adequacy of the resulting fit. EFA identified the same three-factor structure reported previously. CFA confirmed that the measurement model yielded a good fit (χ2/df=3.72, CFI=0.96, SRMR=0.05, RMSEA=0.09) and satisfied convergent and discriminant validity. These findings provide further evidence of the validity and reliability of the PUGS scale in measuring three types of uncertainty. Continued application will facilitate an evidence-based approach to intervention and enhance understanding of what it is like to receive results. In turn, this will improve clinical outcomes as undergoing sequencing becomes an increasingly common experience. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Co-designing models for the communication of genomic results for rare diseases: a comparative study in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom

The communication of genomic results to patients and families with rare diseases raise distinctive challenges. However, there is little evidence about optimal methods to communicate results to this group of service users. To address this gap, we worked with rare disease families and health professionals from two genetic/genomic services, one in the United Kingdom and one in the Czech Republic, to co-design that best meet their needs. Using the participatory methodology of Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD), we conducted observations of clinical appointments (n=49) and interviews with family participants (n=23) and health professionals (n=22) to gather their experience of sharing/receiving results. The findings informed a facilitated co-design process, comprising 3 feedback events at each site and a series of meetings and remote consultations. Participants identified a total of four areas of current service models in need of improvement, and co-designed six prototypes of quality improvement interventions. The main finding was the identification of post-test care as the shared priority for improvement for both health professionals and families at the two sites. Our findings indicate the need to strengthen the link between diagnostics (whether or not a pathogenic variant is found) and post-test care, including psychosocial and community support. This raises implications for the reconfigurations of genomic service models, the redefinition of professional roles and responsibilities and the involvement of rare disease patients and families in health care research.

Psychological predictors of advanced cancer patients' preferences for return of results from comprehensive tumor genomic profiling

This study assessed the psychological predictors of preferences for return of comprehensive tumor genomic profiling (CTGP) results in patients with advanced cancers, enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing CTGP. Of the 1434 who completed a questionnaire, 96% would like to receive results that can guide treatment for their cancer, and preference for receiving this type of result was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty. Sixty-four percent would like to receive results that cannot guide treatment, and lower tolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived importance were associated with this preference. Fifty-nine percent would like to receive variants of unknown significance, which was associated with lower tolerance of uncertainty, higher self-efficacy, and perceived importance. Eighty-six percent wanted to receive germline results that could inform family risk. This was associated with higher self-efficacy, perceived importance, and perceived susceptibility. Although most patients wanted to receive all types of results, given the differing patient preferences regarding the return of results depending on the utility of the different types of results, it appears critical to safeguard patient understanding of result utility to achieve informed patient choices. This should be accompanied by appropriate consent processes.