Show simple item record

Next‐generation sequencing in precision oncology: Patient understanding and expectations

dc.contributor.authorRoberts, J. Scott
dc.contributor.authorGornick, Michele C.
dc.contributor.authorLe, Lan Q.
dc.contributor.authorBartnik, Natalie J.
dc.contributor.authorZikmund-Fisher, Brian J.
dc.contributor.authorChinnaiyan, Arul M.
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Dan
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-12T20:22:34Z
dc.date.available2020-03-03T21:29:35Zen
dc.date.issued2019-01
dc.identifier.citationRoberts, J. Scott; Gornick, Michele C.; Le, Lan Q.; Bartnik, Natalie J.; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.; Chinnaiyan, Arul M.; Robinson, Dan (2019). "Next‐generation sequencing in precision oncology: Patient understanding and expectations." Cancer Medicine 8(1): 227-237.
dc.identifier.issn2045-7634
dc.identifier.issn2045-7634
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/147745
dc.description.abstractBackgroundImplementation of precision oncology interventions poses several challenges to informed consent and patient education. This study assessed cancer patients’ understanding, expectations, and outcomes regarding participation in research examining the impact of matched tumor and germline sequencing on their clinical care.MethodsA total of 297 patients (mean age: 59 years; 50% female; 96% white) with refractory, metastatic cancer were surveyed, including 217 who completed surveys both before and after undergoing integrated whole exome and transcriptome sequencing as part of a larger clinical research study.ResultsAt baseline, the vast majority of patients expected to receive several potential direct benefits from study participation, including written reports of sequencing findings (88%), greater understanding of the causes of their cancer (74%), and participation in clinical trials for which sequencing results would make them eligible (84%). In most cases, these benefits were not realized by study completion. Despite explanations from study personnel to the contrary, most participants (67%‐76%) presumed that incidental germline sequencing findings relevant to noncancerous health conditions (eg, diabetes) would automatically be disclosed to them. Patients reported low levels of concern about study risks at baseline and low levels of regret about study participation at follow‐up.ConclusionsFindings suggest that cancer patients participating in precision oncology intervention research have largely unfulfilled expectations of direct benefits related to their study participation. Increased focus on patient education to supplement the informed consent process may help manage patients’ expectations regarding the extent and likelihood of benefits received as a result of undergoing genomic sequencing.This study assessed cancer patients’ understanding and expectations regarding participation in research examining the impact of matched tumor and germline sequencing on their clinical care. Findings suggest that cancer patients participating in precision oncology intervention research have largely unfulfilled expectations of direct benefits related to their study participation. Increased focus on patient education to supplement the informed consent process may help manage patients’ expectations regarding the extent and likelihood of benefits received as a result of undergoing genomic sequencing.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.othergenome sequencing
dc.subject.otherpatient education
dc.subject.otherprecision oncology
dc.subject.otherinformed consent
dc.titleNext‐generation sequencing in precision oncology: Patient understanding and expectations
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelHematology and Oncology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147745/1/cam41947.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147745/2/cam41947_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cam4.1947
dc.identifier.sourceCancer Medicine
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreen RC, Goddard K, Jarvik GP, et al. Clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium: accelerating evidence‐based practice of genomic medicine. Am J Hum Genet. 2016; 98: 1051 ‐ 1066.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCollins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 793 ‐ 795.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFiore RN, Goodman KW. Precision medicine ethics: selected issues and developments in next‐generation sequencing, clinical oncology, and ethics. Curr Opin Oncol. 2016; 28: 83 ‐ 87.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, et al. Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics. 2011; 14: 279 ‐ 289.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcGowan ML, Settersten RA Jr, Juengst ET, Fishman JR. Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine. Urol Oncol. 2014; 32: 187 ‐ 192.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlannon W. Phase I oncology trials: why the therapeutic misconception will not go away. J Med Ethics. 2006; 32: 252 ‐ 255.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScollon S, Bergstrom K, Kerstein RA, et al. Obtaining informed consent for clinical tumor and germline exome sequencing of newly diagnosed childhood cancer patients. Genome Med. 2014; 6: 69.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarron JM, DuBois SG, Bender JG, et al. Patient/parent perspectives on genomic tumor profiling of pediatric solid tumors: the Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016; 63: 1974 ‐ 1982.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoychowdhury S, Iyer MK, Robinson DR, et al. Personalized oncology through integrative high‐throughput sequencing: a pilot study. Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3: 3003161.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobinson DR, Wu YM, Lonigro RJ, et al. Integrative clinical genomics of metastatic cancer. Nature. 2017; 548: 297 ‐ 303.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGornick MC, Cobain E, Le LQ, et al. Oncologists’ use of genomic sequencing data to Inform clinical management. JCO Precision Oncol. 2018; 2: 1 ‐ 13.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKaphingst KA, Facio FM, Cheng MR, et al. Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge. Clin Genet. 2012; 82: 408 ‐ 415.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJoffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, et al. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 139 ‐ 147.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003; 23: 281 ‐ 292.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZikmund‐Fisher BJ. When “actionable” genomic sequencing results cannot be acted upon. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3: 891 ‐ 892.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSzabo L. Are we being misled about precision medicine? New York Times; 2018 (Sept 11).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTarini BA, Goldenberg AJ. Ethical issues with newborn screening in the genomics era. Annu Rev Genomics Human Genet. 2012; 13: 381 ‐ 393.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJarvik GM, Amendola L, Berg J, et al. Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet. 2014; 94 ( 6 ): 818 ‐ 826.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHull LE, Vassy JL. Toward greater understanding of patient decision‐making around genome sequencing. Per Med. 2017; 15: 57 ‐ 66.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoenig BA. Have we asked too much of consent? Hastings Cent Rep. 2014; 44: 33 ‐ 34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBester J, Cole CM, Kodish E. The limits of informed consent for an overwhelmed patient: clinicians’ role in protecting patients and preventing overwhelm. AMA J Ethics. 2016; 18: 869 ‐ 886.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBombard Y, Clausen M, Mighton C, et al. The Genomics ADvISER: development and usability testing of a decision aid for the selection of incidental sequencing results. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018; 26: 984 ‐ 995.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCaulfield T, Chandrasekharan S, Joly Y, Cook‐Deegan R. Harm, hype and evidence: ELSI research and policy guidance. Genome Med. 2013; 5: 21.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGong J, Pan K, Fakih M, et al. Value‐based genomics. Oncotarget. 2018; 9: 15792 ‐ 15815.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKim S, De Vries R, Holloway RG, Kieburtz K. Understanding the ’therapeutic misconception’ from the research participant’s perspective. J Med Ethics. 2016; 42: 522 ‐ 523.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCummings CA, Peters E, Lacroix L, et al. The role of next‐generation sequencing in enabling personalized oncology therapy. Clin Transl Sci. 2016; 9: 283 ‐ 292.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMody RJ, Wu YM, Lonigro RJ, et al. Integrative clinical sequencing in the management of refractory or relapsed cancer in youth. JAMA. 2015; 314: 913 ‐ 925.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUzilov AV, Ding W, Fink MY, et al. Development and clinical application of an integrative genomic approach to personalized cancer therapy. Genome Med. 2016; 8: 016 ‐ 0313.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.