J Cancer Educ. 2021 Oct;36(5):1105-1114. doi: 10.1007/s13187-020-01742-0.

Information Sources Used by Oncologists to Understand Multi-marker Tumor Panel Tests for Cancer Patients.

Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education

Susan S Buckenmaier, Michelle A Mollica, Andrew Freedman, Erin E Kent, Janet S de Moor

PMID: 32415436 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01742-0

Abstract

Precision medicine using multi-marker tumor panel (MMTP) testing can help inform cancer treatment decisions. Oncologists' knowledge of these tests and their ability to find up-to-date information about their application in clinical care is essential. This study aimed to (1) describe information sources used by oncologists to learn about new genomic tests and (2) examine characteristics associated with the use of each information source. The National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment surveyed a nationally representative sample of oncologists about MMTP testing. We examined the use of 11 information sources among oncologists that reported using MMTP tests (n = 1222). Bivariate analyses were used to examine whether information sources differed by oncologist- and practice-level characteristics and type of MMTP test. Most oncologists reported using peer-reviewed medical literature (88.8%), scientific conferences (87.9%), and medical professional societies (83.8%) to learn about MMTPs. In contrast, government websites, FDA inserts, and foundation resources were each used by < 36% of oncologists. The use of information sources differed by oncologist and practice characteristics. For example, a greater percentage of oncologists with an academic affiliation used peer-reviewed medical literature and scientific conferences, as compared to those without an academic affiliation (p = 0.006). As the number and type of MMTP tests increase, providing oncologists with current information about their appropriate application is essential. Further understanding of how oncologists use specific information sources may improve the dissemination and effective implementation of new MMTPs and help tailor educational interventions based on provider characteristics.

© 2020. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.

Keywords: Cancer; Genomic tests; Health; Precision medicine

References

1. Collins FS, Varmus H (2015) A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 372(9):793–795. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1500523 - PubMed
2. National Research Council Committee (2011) The National Academies Collection: reports funded by National Institutes of Health. In: Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease. National Academies Press (US) National Academy of Sciences, Washington (DC) - PubMed
3. Freedman AN, Klabunde CN, Wiant K, Enewold L, Gray SW, Filipski KK, Keating NL et al (2018) Use of next-generation sequencing tests to guide cancer treatment: results from a nationally representative survey of oncologists in the United States. (2):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1200/po.18.00169 - PubMed
4. Kurian AW, Ward KC, Howlader N, Deapen D, Hamilton AS, Mariotto A, Miller D, Penberthy LS, Katz SJ (2019) Genetic testing and results in a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients and ovarian cancer patients. J Clin Oncol:Jco1801854. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.18.01854 - PubMed
5. El-Deiry WS, Goldberg RM, Lenz HJ, Shields AF, Gibney GT, Tan AR, Brown J et al (2019) The current state of molecular testing in the treatment of patients with solid tumors, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69(4):305–343. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21560 - PubMed
6. Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Hooker GW, Douglas MP (2018) Genetic test availability and spending: where are we now? Where are we going? Health Aff (Millwood) 37(5):710–716. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1427 - PubMed
7. Kolor K, Chen Z, Grosse SD, Rodriguez JL, Green RF, Dotson WD, Bowen MS, Lynch JA, Khoury MJ (2017) BRCA genetic testing and receipt of preventive interventions among women aged 18-64 years with employer-sponsored Health Insurance in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Areas - United States, 2009-2014. MMWR Surveill Summ 66(15):1–11. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6615a1 - PubMed
8. Mai PL, Vadaparampil ST, Breen N, McNeel TS, Wideroff L, Graubard BI (2014) Awareness of cancer susceptibility genetic testing: the 2000, 2005, and 2010 National Health Interview Surveys. Am J Prev Med 46(5):440–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.002 - PubMed
9. Hudson KL, Murphy JA, Kaufman DJ, Javitt GH, Katsanis SH, Scott J (2006) Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories. Nat Biotechnol 24(9):1083–1090. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0906-1083 - PubMed
10. Macklin SK, Jackson JL, Atwal PS, Hines SL (2018) Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance. Fam Cancer 18:121–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-018-0086-2 - PubMed
11. Moreno L, Linossi C, Esteban I, Gadea N, Carrasco E, Bonache S, Gutierrez-Enriquez S, Cruz C, Diez O, Balmana J (2016) Germline BRCA testing is moving from cancer risk assessment to a predictive biomarker for targeting cancer therapeutics. Clin Transl Oncol 18(10):981–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-015-1470-0 - PubMed
12. Rubanovich CK, Cheung C, Mandel J, Bloss CS (2018) Physician preparedness for big genomic data: a review of genomic medicine education initiatives in the United States. Hum Mol Genet 27(R2):R250–r258. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddy170 - PubMed
13. Katz SJ, Bondarenko I, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, Morrow M, Kurian AW, Hofer TP (2018) Association of attending surgeon with variation in the receipt of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer. JAMA Surg 153(10):909–916. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2001 - PubMed
14. Roberts MC, Taber JM, Klein WM (2018) Engagement with genetic information and uptake of genetic testing: the role of trust and personal cancer history. J Cancer Educ 33(4):893–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-1160-9 - PubMed
15. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2018 National Cancer Opinion Survey, Harris Poll. https://www.asco.org/sites/new-www.asco.org/files/content-files/research-and-progress/documents/2018-NCOS-Results.pdf . Accessed Aug 21 2019 - PubMed
16. Wiant K, Geisen E, Creel D, Willis G, Freedman A, de Moor J, Klabunde C (2018) Risks and rewards of using prepaid vs. postpaid incentive checks on a survey of physicians. BMC Med Res Methodol 18(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0565-z - PubMed
17. Payton ME, Greenstone MH, Schenker N (2003) Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? J Insect Sci 3:34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/3.1.34 - PubMed
18. Wolters Kluwer Health. 2013. Wolters Kluwer Health 2013 Physician Outlook Survey https://wolterskluwer.com/company/newsroom/news/health/2013/07/survey-physicians-reveal-top-challenges-financial-management-concerns-and-focus-areas-for-next-3-5-years.html . Accessed Aug 21 2019 - PubMed
19. Borges NJ, Navarro AM, Grover A, Hoban JD (2010) How, when, and why do physicians choose careers in academic medicine? A literature review. Acad Med 85(4):680–686. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d29cb9 - PubMed
20. Charlton M, Schlichting J, Chioreso C, Ward M, Vikas P (2015) Challenges of rural Cancer Care in the United States. Oncology (Williston Park) 29(9):633–640 - PubMed
21. Doorenbos AZ, Kundu A, Eaton LH, Demiris G, Haozous EA, Towle C, Buchwald D (2011) Enhancing access to cancer education for rural healthcare providers via telehealth. J Cancer Educ 26(4):682–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-011-0204-4 - PubMed

MeSH terms

• Humans
• Neoplasms* / diagnosis
• Oncologists*
• Surveys and Questionnaires

Publication Types

• Journal Article
• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural