Multigene expression profile testing in breast cancer: is there a role for family physicians?

Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the citation impact and characteristics of Canadian primary care researchers and research publications.

DESIGN

Citation analysis.

SETTING

Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 266 established Canadian primary care researchers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The 50 most cited primary care researchers in Canada were identified by analyzing data from the Scopus database. Various parameters, including the number of publications and citations, research themes, Scopus h index, content analysis, journal impact factors, and field-weighted citation impact for their publications, were assessed. Information about the characteristics of these researchers was collected using the Google search engine.

RESULTS

On average, the 50 most cited primary care researchers produced 51.1 first-author publications (range 13 to 249) and were cited 1864.32 times (range 796 to 9081) over 29 years. Twenty-seven publications were cited more than 500 times. More than half of the researchers were men (60%). Most were clinician scientists (86%) with a primary academic appointment in family medicine (86%) and were affiliated with 5 universities (74%). Career duration was moderately associated with the number of first-author publications (0.35; P=.013). Most research focused on family practice, while some addressed health and health care issues (eg, continuing professional education, pharmaceutical policy).

CONCLUSION

Canada is home to a cadre of primary care researchers who are highly cited in the medical literature, suggesting that their work is of high quality and relevance. Building on this foundation, further investments in primary care research could accelerate needed improvements in Canadian primary care policy and practice.

Integrating China in the international consortium for personalised medicine. a position paper on healthcare professionals' education and citizens' empowerment in personalised medicine

BACKGROUND

Personalised medicine (PM) has been fostered by technological and medical advances, but all stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, citizens and policy makers, should achieve adequate health literacy to promote PM implementation. The "Integrating China in the International Consortium for Personalised Medicine" (IC2PerMed) project, funded by the International Consortium for Personalised Medicine, focuses on this issue by highlighting the need to educate healthcare professionals and empower citizens. Within the aforementioned project, building on a mapping of European and Chinese policies in PM, experts in the field of PM participated in an online workshop and a following two-round Delphi survey, in order to identify the priority areas of intervention for healthcare professionals' education and curricula, engagement and empowerment of citizens and patients.

RESULTS

Nine experts completed the survey and reached a consensus on seventeen priorities: seven were related to health professionals' education and curricula, whereas ten on citizen and patients' awareness and empowerment.

CONCLUSION

These priorities emphasized the importance of education and health literacy, multidisciplinary and international collaboration, public trust, and consideration of ethical, legal, and social issues. The present experience highlights the relevance of the involvement of stakeholders in informing decision-makers, developing appropriate national plans, strategies, and policies, and ensuring the adequate implementation of PM in health systems.

How Have Multigene Panels Changed the Clinical Practice of Genetic Counseling and Testing

Historically, genetic testing (and billing) for hereditary cancer risk was essentially performed gene by gene, with clinicians ordering testing only for the genes most likely to explain a patient's or family's cancer presentation, with laboratories typically charging $1,000 to $1,500 for each gene that was sequenced. Given the expense, only patients at high risk of having a hereditary syndrome were offered testing. With the introduction of next-generation sequencing technologies, however, laboratories are able to test for multiple genes at the same time with greater efficiency, significantly decreased costs, and relatively little increased expense when adding additional genes. This has drastically altered clinical practice so that clinicians now typically order testing for a panel of multiple genes for most patients. Although this approach has streamlined the diagnostic odyssey, it has introduced several problems, as well, including difficulties in choosing the appropriate panel test for a given patient, assessing the significance of identified genetic variants (including variants of uncertain significance [VUS]), and understanding the disease risks and management associated with pathogenic variants in a given gene. Many laboratories offer testing for genes that have limited data supporting their associated cancer risks, which then leads to an inability to set management guidelines based on that gene. In addition, testing larger numbers of genes increases the likelihood of finding one or more VUS, which introduce their own management issues. Thus, although panel testing has certainly moved clinical practice forward in many ways, it has also raised its own set of problems that increase the complexity of genetic counseling and highlight the need for education of community practitioners on the complexities and nuances of this testing. Whenever possible, testing should be performed by, or in consultation with, cancer genetics professionals.

Healthcare professionals' attitudes toward cancer precision medicine: A systematic review

Use of precision medicine in oncology is burgeoning and can provide patients with new treatment options. However, it is not clear how precision medicine is impacting healthcare professionals (HCPs), particularly with regards to their concerns about this new approach. We therefore synthesized the existing literature on HCPs' attitudes toward cancer precision medicine. We searched four databases for relevant articles. Two reviewers screened eligible articles and extracted data. We assessed the quality of each article using the QualSyst tool. We found 22 articles, representing 4,321 HCPs (63.7% cancer specialists). HCPs held largely positive attitudes toward cancer precision medicine, including their capacity to facilitate treatment decisions and provide prognostic information. However, they also had concerns regarding costs, insurance coverage, limited HCP knowledge about precision medicine, potential misuse, difficulties accessing the tests, and delays in receiving test results. Most HCPs felt that test-related decisions should be shared between families and HCPs. HCPs intended to disclose actionable results but were less inclined to disclose negative/secondary findings. HCPs had a strong preference for genetic counselor involvement when disclosing germline findings. Most HCPs intended to use somatic and germline tests in their future practice but the extent to which pharmacogenomic tests will be used is uncertain. HCPs indicated that additional evidence supporting test utility and increased availability of treatment guidelines could facilitate the use of testing. HCPs held generally positive attitudes toward cancer precision medicine, however there were some key concerns. Addressing concerns early, devising educational support for HCPs and developing guidelines may facilitate the successful implementation of precision medicine trials in the future.

Lessons Learned: It Takes a Village to Understand Inter-Sectoral Care Using Administrative Data across Jurisdictions

Cancer care is complex and exists within the broader healthcare system. The CanIMPACT team sought to enhance primary cancer care capacity and improve integration between primary and cancer specialist care, focusing on breast cancer. In Canada, all medically-necessary healthcare is publicly funded but overseen at the provincial/territorial level. The CanIMPACT Administrative Health Data Group's (AHDG) role was to describe inter-sectoral care across five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This paper describes the process used and challenges faced in creating four parallel administrative health datasets. We present the content of those datasets and population characteristics. We provide guidance for future research based on 'lessons learned'. The AHDG conducted population-based comparisons of care for breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007-2011. We created parallel provincial datasets using knowledge from data inventories, our previous work, and ongoing bi-weekly conference calls. Common dataset creation plans (DCPs) ensured data comparability and documentation of data differences. In general, the process had to be flexible and iterative as our understanding of the data and needs of the broader team evolved. Inter-sectoral data inconsistencies that we had to address occurred due to differences in: 1) healthcare systems, 2) data sources, 3) data elements and 4) variable definitions. Our parallel provincial datasets describe the breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and survivorship phases and address ten research objectives. Breast cancer patient demographics reflect inter-provincial general population differences. Across provinces, disease characteristics are similar but underlying health status and use of healthcare services differ. Describing healthcare across Canadian jurisdictions assesses whether our provincial healthcare systems are delivering similar high quality, timely, accessible care to all of our citizens. We have provided a description of our experience in trying to achieve this goal and, for future use, we include a list of 'lessons learned' and a list of recommended steps for conducting this kind of work.

KEY FINDINGS

The conduct of inter-sectoral research using linked administrative health data requires a committed team that is adequately resourced and has a set of clear, feasible objectives at the start.Guiding principles include: maximization of sectoral participation by including single-jurisdiction expertise and making the most inclusive data decisions; use of living documents that track all data decisions and careful consideration about data quality and availability differences.Inter-sectoral research requires a good understanding of the local healthcare system and other contextual issues for appropriate interpretation of observed differences.

The two solitudes of primary care and cancer specialist care: is there a bridge?

In Canadian Cancer Statistics, the Canadian Cancer Society recently reported a projected increase in cancer incidence of 40% by 2030. [...]