2
|
Fahim SM, Alexander CSW, Qian J, Ngorsuraches S, Hohmann NS, Lloyd KB, Reagan A, Hart L, McCormick N, Westrick SC. Current published evidence on barriers and proposed strategies for genetic testing implementation in health care settings: A scoping review. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2023; 63:998-1016. [PMID: 37119989 DOI: 10.1016/j.japh.2023.04.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2022] [Revised: 04/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The slow uptake of genetic testing in routine clinical practice warrants the attention of researchers and practitioners to find effective strategies to facilitate implementation. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to identify the barriers to and strategies for pharmacogenetic testing implementation in a health care setting from published literature. METHODS A scoping review was conducted in August 2021 with an expanded literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, and Google Scholar to identify studies reporting implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in a health care setting, from a health care system's perspective. Articles were screened using DistillerSR and findings were organized using the 5 major domains of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS A total of 3536 unique articles were retrieved from the above sources, with only 253 articles retained after title and abstract screening. Upon screening the full texts, 57 articles (representing 46 unique practice sites) were found matching the inclusion criteria. We found that most reported barriers and their associated strategies to the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing surrounded 2 CFIR domains: intervention characteristics and inner settings. Factors relating to cost and reimbursement were described as major barriers in the intervention characteristics. In the same domain, another major barrier was the lack of utility studies to provide evidence for genetic testing uptake. Technical hurdles, such as integrating genetic information to medical records, were identified as an inner settings barrier. Collaborations and lessons from early implementers could be useful strategies to overcome majority of the barriers across different health care settings. Strategies proposed by the included implementation studies to overcome these barriers are summarized and can be used as guidance in future. CONCLUSION Barriers and strategies identified in this scoping review can provide implementation guidance for practice sites that are interested in implementing genetic testing.
Collapse
|
3
|
Huang B, Chen Q, Allison D, El Khouli R, Peh KH, Mobley J, Anderson A, Durbin EB, Goodin D, Villano JL, Miller RW, Arnold SM, Kolesar JM. Molecular Tumor Board Review and Improved Overall Survival in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. JCO Precis Oncol 2021; 5:PO.21.00210. [PMID: 34622117 PMCID: PMC8492377 DOI: 10.1200/po.21.00210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2021] [Revised: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 08/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
With the introduction of precision medicine, treatment options for non-small-cell lung cancer have improved dramatically; however, underutilization, especially in disadvantaged patients, like those living in rural Appalachian regions, is associated with poorer survival. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) represent a strategy to increase precision medicine use. UK HealthCare at the University of Kentucky (UK) implemented a statewide MTB in January 2017. We wanted to test the impact of UK MTB review on overall survival in Appalachian and other regions in Kentucky. METHODS We performed a case-control study of Kentucky patients newly diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer between 2017 and 2019. Cases were reviewed by the UK MTB and were compared with controls without UK MTB review. Controls were identified from the Kentucky Cancer Registry and propensity-matched to cases. The primary end point was the association between MTB review and overall patient survival. RESULTS Overall, 956 patients were included, with 343 (39%) residing in an Appalachian region. Seventy-seven (8.1%) were reviewed by the MTB and classified as cases. Cox regression analysis showed that poorer survival outcome was associated with lack of MTB review (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.61; 95% CI, 3.83 to 19.31; P < .0001) and living in an Appalachian region (hazard ratio = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.75; P = .004). Among individuals with MTB review, survival outcomes were similar regardless of whether they lived in Appalachia or other parts of Kentucky. CONCLUSION MTB review is an independent positive predictor of overall survival regardless of residence location. MTBs may help overcome some health disparities for disadvantaged populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bin Huang
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Division of Cancer Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Quan Chen
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Division of Cancer Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Derek Allison
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Riham El Khouli
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Keng Hee Peh
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - James Mobley
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | | | - Eric B Durbin
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | | | - John L Villano
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Rachel W Miller
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Susanne M Arnold
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Jill M Kolesar
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Normanno N, Apostolides K, de Lorenzo F, Beer PA, Henderson R, Sullivan R, Biankin AV, Horgan D, Lawler M. Cancer Biomarkers in the era of precision oncology: Addressing the needs of patients and health systems. Semin Cancer Biol 2021; 84:293-301. [PMID: 34389490 DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Revised: 07/30/2021] [Accepted: 08/02/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Cancer Biomarkers are the key to unlocking the promise of precision oncology, selecting which patients will respond to a more personalised treatment while sparing non-responders the therapy-related toxicity. In this paper, we highlight the primacy of cancer biomarkers, but focus on their importance to patients and to health systems. We also highlight how cancer biomarkers represent value for money. We emphasise the need for cancer biomarkers infrastructure to be embedded into European health systems. We also highlight the need to deploy multiple biomarker testing to deliver the optimal benefit for patients and health systems and consider cancer biomarkers from the perspective of cost, value and regulation. Cancer biomarkers must also be situated in the context of the upcoming In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation, which may pose certain challenges (e.g. non-compliance of laboratory developed tests, leading to cancer biomarker shortages and increased costs) that need to be overcome. Cancer biomarkers must be embedded in the real world of oncology delivery and testing must be implemented across Europe, with the intended aim of narrowing, not widening the inequity gap for patients. Cancer patients must be placed firmly at the centre of a cancer biomarker informed precision oncology care agenda.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Normanno
- Cell Biology and Biotherapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - "Fondazione G. Pascale", Napoli, Italy
| | - Kathi Apostolides
- European Cancer Patient Coalition, Rue Montoyer 40, 1000, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Philip A Beer
- Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Bearsden, Glasgow, Scotland, G61 1QH, United Kingdom; Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom
| | - Raymond Henderson
- Diaceutics PLC, Belfast, United Kingdom; Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Richard Sullivan
- King's College London, Institute of Cancer Policy, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew V Biankin
- Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Bearsden, Glasgow, Scotland, G61 1QH, United Kingdom; West of Scotland Pancreatic Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, G31 2ER, United Kingdom; South Western Sydney Clinical School, Goulburn St, Liverpool, NSW, 2170, Australia
| | - Denis Horgan
- European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, Avenue de l'Armee Legerlaan 10, 1040, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Mark Lawler
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Barnell EK, Newcomer KF, Skidmore ZL, Krysiak K, Anderson SR, Wartman LD, Oh ST, Welch JS, Stockerl-Goldstein KE, Vij R, Cashen AF, Pusic I, Westervelt P, Abboud CN, Ghobadi A, Uy GL, Schroeder MA, Dipersio JF, Politi MC, Spencer DH, Duncavage EJ, Ley TJ, Griffith M, Jacoby MA, Griffith OL. Impact of a 40-Gene Targeted Panel Test on Physician Decision Making for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia. JCO Precis Oncol 2021; 5:PO.20.00182. [PMID: 34036230 PMCID: PMC8140802 DOI: 10.1200/po.20.00182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Physicians treating hematologic malignancies increasingly order targeted sequencing panels to interrogate recurrently mutated genes. The precise impact of these panels on clinical decision making is not well understood. METHODS Here, we report our institutional experience with a targeted 40-gene panel (MyeloSeq) that is used to generate a report for both genetic variants and variant allele frequencies for the treating physician (the limit of mutation detection is approximately one AML cell in 50). RESULTS In total, 346 sequencing reports were generated for 325 patients with suspected hematologic malignancies over an 8-month period (August 2018 to April 2019). To determine the influence of genomic data on clinical care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), we analyzed 122 consecutive reports from 109 patients diagnosed with AML and surveyed the treating physicians with a standardized questionnaire. The panel was ordered most commonly at diagnosis (61.5%), but was also used to assess response to therapy (22.9%) and to detect suspected relapse (15.6%). The panel was ordered at multiple timepoints during the disease course for 11% of patients. Physicians self-reported that 50 of 114 sequencing reports (44%) influenced clinical care decisions in 44 individual patients. Influences were often nuanced and extended beyond identifying actionable genetic variants with US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs. CONCLUSION This study provides insights into how physicians are currently using multigene panels capable of detecting relatively rare AML cells. The most influential way to integrate these tools into clinical practice will be to perform prospective clinical trials that assess patient outcomes in response to genomically driven interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica K Barnell
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Kenneth F Newcomer
- Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Zachary L Skidmore
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Kilannin Krysiak
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Sydney R Anderson
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Lukas D Wartman
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Stephen T Oh
- Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - John S Welch
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Keith E Stockerl-Goldstein
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Ravi Vij
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Amanda F Cashen
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Iskra Pusic
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Peter Westervelt
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Camille N Abboud
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Armin Ghobadi
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Geoffrey L Uy
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Mark A Schroeder
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - John F Dipersio
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Mary C Politi
- Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - David H Spencer
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Eric J Duncavage
- Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Timothy J Ley
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Malachi Griffith
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Meagan A Jacoby
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Obi L Griffith
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.,Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
de Moor JS, Gray SW, Mitchell SA, Klabunde CN, Freedman AN. Oncologist Confidence in Genomic Testing and Implications for Using Multimarker Tumor Panel Tests in Practice. JCO Precis Oncol 2020; 4:PO.19.00338. [PMID: 32923869 PMCID: PMC7446310 DOI: 10.1200/po.19.00338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/28/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The evolution of precision oncology increasingly requires oncologists to incorporate genomic testing into practice. Yet, providers' confidence with genomic testing is poorly documented. This article describes medical oncologists' confidence with genomic testing and the association between genomic confidence and test use. METHODS We used data from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment to characterize oncologists' confidence with genomic testing. Genomic confidence was examined separately by type of test user: next-generation sequencing (NGS) only, gene expression (GE) only, both NGS and GE, or nonuser. Predictors of genomic confidence were examined with multinomial logistic regression. The association between genomic confidence and test use was examined with multivariable linear regression. RESULTS More than 75% of genomic test users were either moderately or very confident about using results from multimarker tumor panel tests to guide patient care. Confidence with using multimarker tumor panel tests was highest among both NGS and GE test users, with 60.1% very confident in using test results, and lowest among NGS-only test users, with 38.2% very confident in using test results. Oncologists were most confident in using single-gene tests and least confident in using whole-genome or -exome sequencing to guide patient care. Genomic confidence was positively associated with self-reported test use. In adjusted models, training in genomics, larger patient volume, and treating patients with solid tumors predicted higher genomic confidence. Onsite pathology services and receipt of electronic medical record alerts for genomic testing predicted lower genomic confidence. CONCLUSION Oncologists' confidence varies by testing platform, patient volume, genomic training, and practice infrastructure. Research is needed to identify modifiable factors that can be targeted to enhance provider confidence with genomic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janet S. de Moor
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
| | - Stacy W. Gray
- Department of Population Sciences and Medical Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA
| | - Sandra A. Mitchell
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
| | - Carrie N. Klabunde
- Office of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Andrew N. Freedman
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
| |
Collapse
|