A national study of breast and colorectal cancer patients’ decision-making for novel personalized medicine genomic diagnostics

Precision cancer medicine and the doctor-patient relationship: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

The implementation of precision medicine is likely to have a huge impact on clinical cancer care, while the doctor-patient relationship is a crucial aspect of cancer care that needs to be preserved. This systematic review aimed to map out perceptions and concerns regarding how the implementation of precision medicine will impact the doctor-patient relationship in cancer care so that threats against the doctor-patient relationship can be addressed.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection) were searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2021, including qualitative, quantitative, and theoretical methods. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Findings were summarized and explained using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Four themes were generated from the included articles (n = 35). Providing information addresses issues of information transmission and needs, and of complex concepts such as genetics and uncertainty. Making decisions in a trustful relationship addresses opacity issues, the role of trust, and and physicians' attitude towards the role of precision medicine tools in decision-making. Managing negative reactions of non-eligible patients addresses patients' unmet expectations of precision medicine. Conflicting roles in the blurry line between clinic and research addresses issues stemming from physicians' double role as doctors and researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Many findings have previously been addressed in doctor-patient communication and clinical genetics. However, precision medicine adds complexity to these fields and further emphasizes the importance of clear communication on specific themes like the distinction between genomic and gene expression and patients' expectations about access, eligibility, effectiveness, and side effects of targeted therapies.

Healthcare professionals' and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs in oncology pharmacogenomics: A systematic review

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomic (PGx)-guided prescribing in oncology lags behind research evidence generation. We aimed to identify healthcare professionals' (HCPs) and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs to inform strategies for implementation of scalable and sustainable oncology PGx programs. Systematic review of original articles indexed in EMBASE, EMCARE, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo from January 2012 until June 2022, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022352348. Of 1442 identified studies; 23 met inclusion criteria with 87% assessed high quality. Of these, 52% reported on HCPs, 35% on consumers, and 13% on both HCPs and consumers. Most were conducted in the United States (70%) and included multiple cancer types (74%). Across studies, HCPs and consumers mostly perceived value in PGx, however, both groups reported barriers to utilization, including cost, lack of consistent recommendations across guidelines, and limited knowledge among HCPs; test accuracy, clear testing benefits, and genomic information confidentiality among consumers. HCPs and consumers value and want to engage in PGx strategies in oncology care, however, are inhibited by unmet needs and practice and knowledge gaps. Implementation strategies aimed at addressing these issues may best support increased PGx uptake in oncology practice.

Patients' perspectives related to ethical issues and risks in precision medicine: a systematic review

Background

Precision medicine is growing due to technological advancements including next generation sequencing techniques and artificial intelligence. However, with the application of precision medicine many ethical and potential risks may emerge. Although, its benefits and potential harms are relevantly known to professional societies and practitioners, patients' attitudes toward these potential ethical risks are not well-known. The aim of this systematic review was to focus on patients' perspective on ethics and risks that may rise with the application of precision medicine.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on 4/1/2023 in the database of PubMed, for the period 1/1/2012 to 4/1/2023 identifying 914 articles. After initial screening, only 50 articles were found to be relevant. From these 50 articles, 24 articles were included in this systematic review, 2 articles were excluded as not in English language, 1 was a review, and 23 articles did not include enough relevant qualitative data regarding our research question to be included. All full texts were evaluated following PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews following the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria.

Results

There were eight main themes emerging from the point of view of the patients regarding ethical concerns and risks of precision medicine: privacy and security of patient data, economic impact on the patients, possible harms of precision medicine including psychosocial harms, risk for discrimination of certain groups, risks in the process of acquiring informed consent, mistrust in the provider and in medical research, issues with the diagnostic accuracy of precision medicine and changes in the doctor-patient relationship.

Conclusion

Ethical issues and potential risks are important for patients in relation to the applications of precision medicine and need to be addressed with patient education, dedicated research and official policies. Further research is needed for validation of the results and awareness of these findings can guide clinicians to understand and address patients concerns in clinical praxis.

Evaluating the quality of the economic evidence in colorectal cancer genomics studies

The increase in the use of genome-based screening and diagnostic tests adds to the overall costs of oncologic care for colorectal cancer. This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in published economic analyses. Aim: To perform a systematic literature review of the available economic evidence evaluating the value of genomic testing for colorectal cancer and appraise the quality of the economic studies conducted to date. Methods: A systematic review of the literature for economic studies of colorectal cancer genomics from January 2006 through October 2020, and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was conducted. The validated QHES was then applied to a final set of articles that met eligibility criteria. Results: Our search of the literature initially yielded 12,859 records. A final set of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. The QHES score ranged from 24 to 100, with an average score of 82. Most of the studies (n = 40, 82%) scored above 75 and were considered of good quality. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that most of the economic analyses of colorectal cancer genomic molecular diagnostics in the literature may be of good quality. There is, however, some variation in methodological rigor between the articles.

Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine development is driven by the possibilities of next generation sequencing, information technology and artificial intelligence and thus, raises a number of ethical questions. Empirical studies have investigated such issues from the perspectives of health care professionals, researchers and patients. We synthesize the results from these studies in this review.

METHODS

We used a systematic strategy to search, screen and assess the literature for eligibility related to our research question. The initial search for empirical studies in five data bases provided 665 different records and we selected 92 of these publications for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted in a spreadsheet and categorized into different topics representing the views on ethical issues in precision medicine.

RESULTS

Many patients and professionals expect high benefits from precision medicine and have a positive attitude towards it. However, patients and professionals also perceive some risks. Commonly perceived risks include: lack of evidence for accuracy of tests and efficacy of treatments; limited knowledge of patients, which makes informed consent more difficult; possible unavailability of access to precision medicine for underprivileged people and ethnic minorities; misuse of data by insurance companies and employers, potential of racial stigmatization due to genetic information; unwanted communication of incidental findings; changes in doctor-patient-relationship through focusing on data; and the problem that patients could feel under pressure to optimize their health.

CONCLUSIONS

National legislation and guidelines already minimize many risks associated with precision medicine. However, from our perspective some problems require more attention. Should hopes for precision medicine's benefits be fulfilled, then the ethical principle of justice would require an unlimited access to precision medicine for all people. The potential for autonomous patients' decisions must be greatly enhanced by improvements in patient education. Harm from test results must be avoided in any case by the highest possible data security level and communication guidelines. Changes in the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of precision medicine on the quality of life should be further investigated. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine should be further examined, in order to avoid malinvestment.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing

BACKGROUND

Although genetic testing has the potential to offer promising medical benefits, concerns regarding its potential negative impacts may influence its acceptance. Users and providers need to weigh the benefits, costs and potential harms before deciding whether to take up or recommend genetic testing. Attribute-based stated-preference methods, such as discrete choice experiment (DCE) or conjoint analysis, can help to quantify how individuals value different features of genetic testing.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of DCE and conjoint analysis studies on genetic testing, including genomic tests.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in seven databases: Web of Science, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. The search was conducted in February 2021 and was limited to English peer-reviewed articles published until the search date. The search keywords included relevant keywords such as 'genetic testing', 'genomic testing', 'pharmacogenetic testing', 'discrete choice experiment' and 'conjoint analysis'. Narrative synthesis of the studies was conducted on survey population, testing type, recruitment and data collection, survey development, questionnaire content, survey validity, analysis, outcomes and other design features.

RESULTS

Of the 292 articles retrieved, 38 full-text articles were included in this review. Nearly two-thirds of the studies were published since 2015 and all were conducted in high-income countries. Survey samples included patients, parents, general population and healthcare providers. The articles assessed preferences for pharmacogenetic testing (28.9%), predictive testing and diagnostic testing (18.4%), while only one (2.6%) study investigated preferences for carrier testing. The most common sampling method was convenience sampling (57.9%) and the majority recruited participants via web-enabled surveys (60.5%). Review of literature (84.6%), discussions with healthcare professionals (71.8%) and cognitive interviews (53.8%) were commonly used for attribute identification. A survey validity test was included in only one-quarter of the studies (28.2%). Cost attributes were the most studied attribute type (76.9%), followed by risk attributes (61.5%). Among those that reported relative attribute importance, attributes related to benefits were the most commonly reported attributes with the highest relative attribute importance. Preference heterogeneity was investigated in most studies by modelling, such as via mixed logit analysis (82.1%) and/or by using interaction effects with respondent characteristics (74.4%). Willingness to pay was the most commonly estimated outcome and was presented in about two-thirds (n = 25; 64.1%) of the studies.

CONCLUSION

With the continuous advancement in genetic technology resulting in expanding options for genetic testing and improvements in delivery methods, the application of genetic testing in clinical care is expected to rise. DCEs and conjoint analysis remain robust and useful methods to elicit preferences of potential stakeholders. This review serves as a summary for future researchers when designing similar studies.

Breast Cancer Risk Estimation and Personal Insurance: A Qualitative Study Presenting Perspectives from Canadian Patients and Decision Makers

Genetic stratification approaches in personalized medicine may considerably improve our ability to predict breast cancer risk for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Notwithstanding these advantages, concerns have been raised about the use of the genetic information derived in these processes, outside of the research and medical health care settings, by third parties such as insurers. Indeed, insurance applicants are asked to consent to insurers accessing their medical information (implicitly including genetic) to verify or determine their insurability level, or eligibility to certain insurance products. This use of genetic information may result in the differential treatment of individuals based on their genetic information, which could lead to higher premium, exclusionary clauses or even the denial of coverage. This phenomenon has been commonly referred to as "Genetic Discrimination" (GD). In the Canadian context, where federal Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, has recently been enacted but may be subject to constitutional challenges, information about potential risks to insurability may raise issues in the clinical context. We conducted a survey with women in Quebec who have never been diagnosed with breast cancer to document their perspectives. We complemented the research with data from 14 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers in Quebec to discuss institutional issues raised by the use of genetic information by insurers. Our results provide findings on five main issues: (1) the reluctance to undergo genetic screening test due to insurability concerns, (2) insurers' interest in genetic information, (3) the duty to disclose genetic information to insurers, (4) the disclosure of potential impacts on insurability before genetic testing, and (5) the status of genetic information compared to other health data. Overall, both groups of participants (the women surveyed and the decision-makers interviewed) acknowledged having concerns about GD and reported a need for better communication tools discussing insurability risk. Our conclusions regarding concerns about GD and the need for better communication tools in the clinical setting may be transferable to the broader Canadian context.

The future of genomic testing in primary care: the changing face of personalized medicine

Primary care is recognized worldwide as a key component for improving health outcomes in the population. At the same time, healthcare systems are rapidly changing with increasing expectations from technological advances. Genomics is a major driver in changing how medicine is being practiced; however, the importance for primary care has been under-appreciated. Strategically implementing genomics in a way that accounts for the unique characteristics of the primary care context is essential. In this perspective, we present important areas that we believe are critical in consideration of both the future of genomic medicine and primary healthcare delivery.