| Id | 2402 | |
| Author | Shickh S.; Oldfield L.E.; Clausen M.; Mighton C.; Sebastian A.; Calvo A.; Baxter N.N.; Dawson L.; Penney L.S.; Foulkes W.; Basik M.; Sun S.; Schrader K.A.; Regier D.A.; Karsan A.; Pollett A.; Pugh T.J.; Kim R.H.; Bombard Y. | |
| Title | “Game Changer”: Health Professionals’ Views on the Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Management | |
| Reference | Shickh S.; Oldfield L.E.; Clausen M.; Mighton C.; Sebastian A.; Calvo A.; Baxter N.N.; Dawson L.; Penney L.S.; Foulkes W.; Basik M.; Sun S.; Schrader K.A.; Regier D.A.; Karsan A.; Pollett A.; Pugh T.J.; Kim R.H.; Bombard Y. “Game Changer”: Health Professionals’ Views on the Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Management,Oncologist 27 5 |
|
| Link to article | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85130001757&doi=10.1093%2foncolo%2foyac039&partnerID=40&md5=0c6b087484f75545d51f185ddcf6ad88 |
|
| Abstract | Background: We explored health professionals’ views on the utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) management. Materials and Methods: A qualitative interpretive description study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with professionals across Canada.Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used for analysis. 2 investigators coded each transcript. Differences were reconciled through discussion and the codebook was modified as new codes and themes emerged from the data. Results: Thirty-five professionals participated and included genetic counselors (n = 12), geneticists (n = 9), oncologists (n = 4), family doctors (n = 3), lab directors and scientists (n = 3), a health-system decision maker, a surgeon, a pathologist, and a nurse. Professionals described ctDNA as “transformative” and a “game-changer”. However, they were divided on its use in HCS management, with some being optimistic (optimists) while others were hesitant (pessimists). Differences were driven by views on 3 factors: (1) clinical utility, (2) ctDNA’s role in cancer screening, and (3) ctDNA’s invasiveness. Optimists anticipated ctDNA testing would have clinical utility for HCS patients, its role would be akin to a diagnostic test and would be less invasive than standard screening (eg imaging). Pessimistic participants felt ctDNA testing would add limited utility; it would effectively be another screening test in the pathway, likely triggering additional investigations downstream, thereby increasing invasiveness. Conclusions: Providers anticipated ctDNA testing will transform early cancer detection for HCS families. However, the contrasting positions on ctDNA’s role in the care pathway raise potential practice variations, highlighting a need to develop evidence to support clinical implementation and guidelines to standardize adoption. © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. |
|
| Keywords | Circulating Tumor DNA; Early Detection of Cancer; Health Personnel; Humans; Neoplastic Syndromes, Hereditary; Qualitative Research; BRCA1 protein; BRCA2 protein; circulating tumor DNA; circulating tumor DNA; anxiety; Article; cancer patient; cancer screening; clinical article; clinical decision making; clinical trial; cohort analysis; controlled study; diagnostic test; early cancer; early cancer diagnosis; female; follow up; gene mutation; genetic counseling; health practitioner; hereditary tumor syndrome; human; male; nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; ovary cancer; pancreas cancer; qualitative research; screening test; semi structured interview; tumor invasion; genetics; health care personnel; procedures |
Wordcloud:
MESOC has received funding
from Horizon 2020 - the EU Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) -
under Grant Agreement n°870935.
We take your privacy seriously and WE DO NOT process any personal data or any information that reveals personal identity or information that can be linked to such information to identify directly or indirectly.
2021 © CD