Physicians' attitudes about multiplex tumor genomic testing

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 32, Issue 13, 2014, Pages 1317-1323

  Gray, Stacy W ^a,b   Hicks Courant, Katherine ^c   Cronin, Angel ^a   Rollins, Barrett J ^a,b   Weeks, Jane C ^a,b  

^a DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER CENTER; CANCER SCREENING; CHILD; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMICS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; MULTIPLE CANCER; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ONCOLOGIST; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; GENETICS; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; NEOPLASM; ONCOLOGY; PHYSICIAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIANS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84902583099     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.4298     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Garraway LA: Genomics-driven oncology: Framework for an emerging paradigm. J Clin Oncol 31:1806-1814, 2013
2. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, et al: Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med 362:2380-2388, 2010
3. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al: Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 364:2507-2516, 2011
4. MacConaill LE: Existing and emerging technologies for tumor genomic profiling. J Clin Oncol 31:1815-1824, 2013
5. Ciardiello F, Tejpar S, Normanno N, et al: Uptake of KRAS mutation testing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Europe, Latin America and Asia. Target Oncol 6:133-145, 2011
6. Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME, et al: Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. 30:2218-2226, 2012
7. Oratz R, Kim B, Chao C, et al: Physician survey of the effect of the 21-gene recurrence score assay results on treatment recommendations for patients with lymph node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 7:94-99, 2011
8. Gray SW, Hicks-Courant K, Lathan CS, et al: Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing. J Oncol Pract 8:329-335, 2012
9. Tzeng JP, Mayer D, Richman AR, et al: Women's experiences with genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk. Cancer 116:1992-2000, 2010
10. O'Neill SC, Brewer NT, Lillie SE, et al: Women's interest in gene expression analysis for breast cancer recurrence risk. J Clin Oncol 25:4628-4634, 2007 (Pubitemid 350035323)
11. Wideroff L, Freedman AN, Olson L, et al: Physician use of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: Results of a national survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:295-303, 2003 (Pubitemid 36427989)
12. Freedman AN, Wideroff L, Olson L, et al: US physicians' attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet A 120A:63-71, 2003 (Pubitemid 37063834)
13. Cox SL, Zlot AI, Silvey K, et al: Patterns of cancer genetic testing: A randomized survey of Oregon clinicians. J Cancer Epidemiol 2012:294730, 2012
14. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al: Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadatadriven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377-381, 2009
15. Horton NJ, Kleinman KP: Much ado about nothing: A comparison of missing data methods and software to fit incomplete data regression models. Am Stat 61:79-90, 2007
16. American Association for Public Opinion Research: Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (ed 4). Lenexa, KS, American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2011
17. Ali-Khan SE, Daar AS, Shuman C, et al: Whole genome scanning: Resolving clinical diagnosis and management amidst complex data. Pediatr Res 66:357-363, 2009
18. Buchanan JA, Scherer SW: Contemplating effects of genomic structural variation. Genet Med 10:639-647, 2008
19. Khoury MJ: Dealing with the evidence dilemma in genomics and personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 87:635-638, 2010
20. Fishbein M: A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Med Decis Making 28:834-844, 2008
21. Hudson KL: Genomics, health care, and society. N Engl J Med 365:1033-1041, 2011
22. Evans JP, Rothschild BB: Return of results: Not that complicated? Genet Med 14:358-360, 2012
23. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, et al: Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: Updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 3:574-580, 2010
24. Wolf SM: The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet Med 14:355-357, 2012
25. Shields AE, Blumenthal D, Weiss KB, et al: Barriers to translating emerging genetic research on smoking into clinical practice. Perspectives of primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med 20:131-138, 2005 (Pubitemid 40626990)
26. Teutsch SM: Genetics Education and Training: Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/ SACGHS/reports/SACGHS-education-report-2011.pdf
27. Van Allen EM, Wagle N, Levy MA: Clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genome data. J Clin Oncol 31:1825-1833, 2013
28. Rogers SO Jr, Gray SW, Landrum MB, et al: Variations in surgeon treatment recommendations for lobectomy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer by patient age and comorbidity. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1581-1588, 2010
29. Shields AE, Burke W, Levy DE: Differential use of available genetic tests among primary care physicians in the United States: Results of a national survey. Genet Med 10:404-414, 2008