Community oncologists’ perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing

MCGI Working Group; Eric C. Anderson; Alexandra C. Hinton; Christine W. Lary; Anny T.H.R. Fenton; Andrey Antov; Emily Edelman; Petra Helbig; Kate Reed; Susan Miesfeldt; Christian A. Thomas; Michael J. Hall; J. Scott Roberts; Jens Rueter; Paul K.J. Han; Nicholette Erickson; Mayur Movalia; Marek Skacel; Allan Espinosa; Ridhi Gupta; Rachit Kumar; Richard Polkinghorn; Christopher Darus; Scot Remick; Robert Christman; Karen Rasmussen; Philip Brooks; Catherine Chodkiewicz; Antoine Harb; Sarah Sinclair; Peter Rubin; Elizabeth Connelly; Peter Georges; Jennifer Bourne; Linda Choquette; Ken Fasman; Cristen Flewellen; Lory Guerrette; Susan Mockus; Kunal Sanghavi

doi:10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0

Community oncologists’ perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing

MCGI Working Group, Eric C. Anderson, Alexandra C. Hinton, Christine W. Lary, Anny T.H.R. Fenton, Andrey Antov, Emily Edelman, Petra Helbig, Kate Reed, Susan Miesfeldt, Christian A. Thomas, Michael J. Hall, J. Scott Roberts, Jens Rueter, Paul K.J. Han, Nicholette Erickson, Mayur Movalia, Marek Skacel, Allan Espinosa, Ridhi GuptaRachit Kumar, Richard Polkinghorn, Christopher Darus, Scot Remick, Robert Christman, Karen Rasmussen, Philip Brooks, Catherine Chodkiewicz, Antoine Harb, Sarah Sinclair, Peter Rubin, Elizabeth Connelly, Peter Georges, Jennifer Bourne, Linda Choquette, Ken Fasman, Cristen Flewellen, Lory Guerrette, Susan Mockus, Kunal Sanghavi

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists’ perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists’ perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. Methods: Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. Results: There was substantial variability in clinicians’ perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients’ ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians’ future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. Conclusions: Community oncologists’ perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.

Original language	English
Article number	1273
Pages (from-to)	1273
Journal	Bmc Cancer
Volume	21
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0
State	Published - Dec 2021

Keywords

Attitude of Health Personnel
Comprehension
Female
Forecasting
Genetic Testing/statistics & numerical data
Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data
Hematology/statistics & numerical data
Humans
Intention
Maine
Male
Neoplasms/genetics
Oncologists/psychology
Regression Analysis
Rural Health Services
Self Concept
Uncertainty

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0

Cite this

MCGI Working Group, Anderson, E. C., Hinton, A. C., Lary, C. W., Fenton, A. T. H. R., Antov, A., Edelman, E., Helbig, P., Reed, K., Miesfeldt, S., Thomas, C. A., Hall, M. J., Roberts, J. S., Rueter, J., Han, P. K. J., Erickson, N., Movalia, M., Skacel, M., Espinosa, A., ... Sanghavi, K. (2021). Community oncologists’ perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing. Bmc Cancer, 21(1), 1273. Article 1273. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0

@article{b9d8328f021348ca9544a775a31d4358,

title = "Community oncologists{\textquoteright} perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing",

abstract = "Purpose: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists{\textquoteright} perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists{\textquoteright} perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. Methods: Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. Results: There was substantial variability in clinicians{\textquoteright} perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients{\textquoteright} ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians{\textquoteright} future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. Conclusions: Community oncologists{\textquoteright} perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.",

keywords = "Attitude of Health Personnel, Comprehension, Female, Forecasting, Genetic Testing/statistics & numerical data, Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data, Hematology/statistics & numerical data, Humans, Intention, Maine, Male, Neoplasms/genetics, Oncologists/psychology, Regression Analysis, Rural Health Services, Self Concept, Uncertainty",

author = "{MCGI Working Group} and Anderson, {Eric C.} and Hinton, {Alexandra C.} and Lary, {Christine W.} and Fenton, {Anny T.H.R.} and Andrey Antov and Emily Edelman and Petra Helbig and Kate Reed and Susan Miesfeldt and Thomas, {Christian A.} and Hall, {Michael J.} and Roberts, {J. Scott} and Jens Rueter and Han, {Paul K.J.} and Nicholette Erickson and Mayur Movalia and Marek Skacel and Allan Espinosa and Ridhi Gupta and Rachit Kumar and Richard Polkinghorn and Christopher Darus and Scot Remick and Robert Christman and Karen Rasmussen and Philip Brooks and Catherine Chodkiewicz and Antoine Harb and Sarah Sinclair and Peter Rubin and Elizabeth Connelly and Peter Georges and Jennifer Bourne and Linda Choquette and Ken Fasman and Cristen Flewellen and Lory Guerrette and Susan Mockus and Kunal Sanghavi",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021, The Author(s).",

year = "2021",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "1273",

journal = "Bmc Cancer",

issn = "1471-2407",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",

number = "1",

}

MCGI Working Group, Anderson, EC, Hinton, AC, Lary, CW, Fenton, ATHR, Antov, A, Edelman, E, Helbig, P, Reed, K, Miesfeldt, S, Thomas, CA, Hall, MJ, Roberts, JS, Rueter, J, Han, PKJ, Erickson, N, Movalia, M, Skacel, M, Espinosa, A, Gupta, R, Kumar, R, Polkinghorn, R, Darus, C, Remick, S, Christman, R, Rasmussen, K, Brooks, P, Chodkiewicz, C, Harb, A, Sinclair, S, Rubin, P, Connelly, E, Georges, P, Bourne, J, Choquette, L, Fasman, K, Flewellen, C, Guerrette, L, Mockus, S & Sanghavi, K 2021, 'Community oncologists’ perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing', Bmc Cancer, vol. 21, no. 1, 1273, pp. 1273. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community oncologists’ perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing

AU - MCGI Working Group

AU - Anderson, Eric C.

AU - Hinton, Alexandra C.

AU - Lary, Christine W.

AU - Fenton, Anny T.H.R.

AU - Antov, Andrey

AU - Edelman, Emily

AU - Helbig, Petra

AU - Reed, Kate

AU - Miesfeldt, Susan

AU - Thomas, Christian A.

AU - Hall, Michael J.

AU - Roberts, J. Scott

AU - Rueter, Jens

AU - Han, Paul K.J.

AU - Erickson, Nicholette

AU - Movalia, Mayur

AU - Skacel, Marek

AU - Espinosa, Allan

AU - Gupta, Ridhi

AU - Kumar, Rachit

AU - Polkinghorn, Richard

AU - Darus, Christopher

AU - Remick, Scot

AU - Christman, Robert

AU - Rasmussen, Karen

AU - Brooks, Philip

AU - Chodkiewicz, Catherine

AU - Harb, Antoine

AU - Sinclair, Sarah

AU - Rubin, Peter

AU - Connelly, Elizabeth

AU - Georges, Peter

AU - Bourne, Jennifer

AU - Choquette, Linda

AU - Fasman, Ken

AU - Flewellen, Cristen

AU - Guerrette, Lory

AU - Mockus, Susan

AU - Sanghavi, Kunal

PY - 2021/12

Y1 - 2021/12

N2 - Purpose: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists’ perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists’ perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. Methods: Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. Results: There was substantial variability in clinicians’ perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients’ ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians’ future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. Conclusions: Community oncologists’ perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.

AB - Purpose: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists’ perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists’ perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. Methods: Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. Results: There was substantial variability in clinicians’ perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients’ ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians’ future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. Conclusions: Community oncologists’ perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.

KW - Attitude of Health Personnel

KW - Comprehension

KW - Female

KW - Forecasting

KW - Genetic Testing/statistics & numerical data

KW - Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data

KW - Hematology/statistics & numerical data

KW - Humans

KW - Intention

KW - Maine

KW - Male

KW - Neoplasms/genetics

KW - Oncologists/psychology

KW - Regression Analysis

KW - Rural Health Services

KW - Self Concept

KW - Uncertainty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122276387&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0

DO - 10.1186/s12885-021-08985-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 34823486

AN - SCOPUS:85122276387

SN - 1471-2407

VL - 21

SP - 1273

JO - Bmc Cancer

JF - Bmc Cancer

IS - 1

M1 - 1273

ER -

Community oncologists’ perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this