Dataset Information

Metastatic breast cancer patient perceptions of somatic tumor genomic testing.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To assess metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patient psychological factors, perceptions, and comprehension of tumor genomic testing. METHODS:In a prospective, single institution, single-arm trial, patients with MBC underwent next-generation sequencing at study entry with sequencing results released at progression. Patients who completed surveys before undergoing sequencing were included in the present secondary analysis (n =?58). We administered four validated psychosocial measures: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Trust in Physician Scale, and Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for Cancer. Genetic comprehension was assessed using 7-question objective and 6-question subjective measures. Longitudinal data were assessed (n =?40) using paired Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar's test of agreement. RESULTS:There were no significant differences between the beginning and end of study in depression, anxiety, physician trust, or self-efficacy (median time on study: 7.6?months). Depression and anxiety were positively associated with each other and both negatively associated with self-efficacy. Self-efficacy decreased from pre- to post-genomic testing (p =?0.05). Objective genetics comprehension did not significantly change from pre- to post-genomic testing, but patients expressed increased confidence in their ability to teach others about genetics (p =?0.04). Objective comprehension was significantly lower in non-white patients (p =?0.02) and patients with lower income (p =?0.04). CONCLUSIONS:This is the only study, to our knowledge, to longitudinally evaluate multiple psychological metrics in MBC as patients undergo tumor genomic testing. Overall, psychological dimensions remained stable over the duration of tumor genomic testing. Among patients with MBC, depression and anxiety metrics were negatively correlated with patient self-efficacy. Patients undergoing somatic genomic testing had limited genomic knowledge, which varied by demographic groups and may warrant additional educational intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION:NCT01987726, registered November 13, 2013.

SUBMITTER: Adams EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7201768 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Metastatic breast cancer patient perceptions of somatic tumor genomic testing.

Adams Elizabeth J EJ Asad Sarah S Reinbolt Raquel R Collier Katharine A KA Abdel-Rasoul Mahmoud M Gillespie Susan S Chen James L JL Cherian Mathew A MA Noonan Anne M AM Sardesai Sagar S VanDeusen Jeffrey J Wesolowski Robert R Williams Nicole N Shapiro Charles L CL Macrae Erin R ER Pilarski Robert R Toland Amanda E AE Senter Leigha L Ramaswamy Bhuvaneswari B Lee Clara N CN Lustberg Maryam B MB Stover Daniel G DG

BMC cancer 20200506 1

<h4>Background</h4>To assess metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patient psychological factors, perceptions, and comprehension of tumor genomic testing.<h4>Methods</h4>In a prospective, single institution, single-arm trial, patients with MBC underwent next-generation sequencing at study entry with sequencing results released at progression. Patients who completed surveys before undergoing sequencing were included in the present secondary analysis (n = 58). We administered four validated psychosocial ...[more]

PMID: 32375690

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate the impact of targeted DNA sequencing on selection of cancer therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial, patients with MBC were enrolled within 10 weeks of starting a new therapy. At enrollment, tumor samples underwent next-generation sequencing for any of 315 cancer-related genes to high depth (> 500×) using FoundationOne CDx. Sequencing results were released to providers at the time of disease progression, and physician treatment recommendations were assessed via questionnaire. We evaluated three prespecified questions to assess patients' perceptions of genomic testing. RESULTS:In all, 100 patients underwent genomic testing, with a median of five mutations (range, 0 to 13 mutations) detected per patient. Genomic testing revealed one or more potential therapies in 98% of patients (98 of 100), and 60% of patients (60 of 100) had one or more recommended treatments with level I/II evidence for actionability. Among the 94 genomic text reports that were released, there was physician questionnaire data for 87 patients (response rate, 92.6%) and 31.0% of patients (27 of 87) had treatment change recommended by their physician. Of these, 37.0% (10 of 27) received the treatment supported by genomic testing. We did not detect a statistically significant difference in time-to-treatment failure (log-rank P = .87) or overall survival (P = .71) among patients who had treatment change supported by genomic testing versus those who had no treatment change. For patients who completed surveys before and after genomic testing, there was a significant decrease in confidence of treatment success, specifically among patients who did not have treatment change supported by genomic testing (McNemar's test of agreement P = .001). CONCLUSION:In this prospective study, genomic profiling of tumors in patients with MBC frequently identified potential treatments and resulted in treatment change in a minority of patients. Patients whose therapy was not changed on the basis of genomic testing seemed to have a decrease in confidence of treatment success.

Project description:Pharmacogenomics seeks to improve prescribing by reducing drug inefficacy/toxicity. However, views of patients during pharmacogenomic-guided care are largely unknown. We sought to understand the attitudes and perceptions of patients in an institutional implementation project and hypothesized that views would differ on the basis of experience with pharmacogenomic-guided care.Two focus groups were conducted - one group included patients who had previously been subjected to broad pharmacogenomic genotyping with results available to physicians (pharmacogenomic group), whereas the other had not been offered genotyping (traditional care). Five domains were explored: (i) experiences with medications/side effects, (ii) understanding of pharmacogenomics, (iii) impact of pharmacogenomics on relationships with healthcare professionals, (iv) scenarios involving pharmacogenomic-guided prescribing, and (v) responses to pharmacogenomic education materials.Nine pharmacogenomic and 13 traditional care participants were included. Participants in both groups agreed that pharmacogenomics could inform prescribing and help identify problem prescriptions, but expressed concerns over insurance coverage and employment discrimination. Both groups diverged on who should be permitted to access pharmacogenomic results, with some preferring access only for providers with a longstanding relationship, whereas others argued for open access. Notably, traditional care participants showed greater skepticism about how results might be used. Case scenarios and tested educational materials elicited strong desires on the part of patients for physicians to engage participants when considering pharmacogenomic-based prescribing and to utilize shared decision-making.Participants experiencing pharmacogenomic-guided care were more receptive toward pharmacogenomic information being used than traditional care participants. As key stakeholders in implementation, addressing patients' concerns will be important to successfully facilitate clinical dissemination.

Project description:BackgroundMetastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a complex and life-threatening disease and although it is difficult to cure, patients can benefit from sequential anticancer treatment, including endocrine therapy, targeted therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy. The patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model is suggested as a practical tool to predict the clinical outcome of this disease as well as to screen novel drugs. This study aimed to establish PDX models in Korean patients and analyze their genomic profiles and utility for translational research.MethodsPercutaneous core needle biopsy or punch biopsy samples were used for xenotransplantation. Whole exome sequencing and transcriptome analysis were performed to assess the genomic and RNA expression profiles, respectively. Copy number variation and mutational burden were analyzed and compared with other metastatic breast cancer genomic results. Mutational signatures were also analyzed. The antitumor effect of an ATR inhibitor was tested in the relevant PDX model.ResultsOf the 151 cases studied, 40 (26%) PDX models were established. Notably, the take rate of all subtypes, including the hormone receptor-positive (HR +) subtype, exceeded 20%. The PDX model had genomic fidelity and copy number variation that represented the pattern of its donor sample. TP53, PIK3CA, ESR1, and GATA3 mutations were frequently found in our samples, with TP53 being the most frequently mutated, and the somatic mutations in these genes strengthened their frequency in the PDX model. The ESR1 mutation, CCND1 amplification, and the APOBEC signature were significant features in our HR + HER2- PDX model. Fulvestrant in combination with palbociclib showed a partial response to the relevant patient's tumor harboring the ESR1 mutation, and CCND1 amplification was found in the PDX model. AZD6738, an ATR inhibitor, delayed tumor growth in a relevant PDX model.ConclusionsOur PDX model was established using core needle biopsy samples from primary and metastatic tissues. Genomic profiles of the samples reflected their original tissue characteristics and could be used for the interpretation of clinical outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) has a poor prognosis and few treatment options. The anti-PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab demonstrated clinical activity in mTNBC patients with PD-L1-positive tumor-infiltrating immune cells. The current study describes the tumor immune microenvironment (TiME) and genomic evolution across sequential therapies in a patient with a 31-year history of TNBC and a complete response (CR) to atezolizumab monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In 1986, the patient had surgery and radiotherapy (XRT) for newly diagnosed TNBC, followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for two locoregional recurrences. She developed mTNBC in 2009 and was sequentially treated with capecitabine, gemcitabine-carboplatin-iniparib (GCI), XRT and an experimental vaccine. She experienced disease progression (PD) to all these therapies. In 2013, she had a PD-L1 positive tumor and enrolled in a phase 1 atezolizumab monotherapy study (PCD4989g; NCT01375842). She received atezolizumab for 1 year with initial pseudo-progression followed by a partial response. After 1 year without treatment she experienced PD, reinitiated atezolizumab and subsequently achieved CR. Tumor specimens were collected at numerous times between 2008 and 2015 and assessed by immunohistochemistry, RNA-seq and DNA-seq. RESULTS:TiME biomarkers, including CD8, ICs and PD-L1 on IC, increased after capecitabine and remained high after GCI, XRT and through pseudo-progression on atezolizumab. At PD post-atezolizumab exposure, TiME biomarkers decreased but PD-L1 status remained positive. Immune-related RNA signatures confirmed these findings. TNBC subtyping revealed evolution from luminal androgen receptor (LAR) to basal-like immune activated (BLIA). Genomic profiling showed truncal alterations in RB1 and TP53, while the presence of other genomic alterations varied over time. Tumor mutational burden peaked after XRT and declined after atezolizumab exposure. CONCLUSIONS:This case report describes the evolution of TiME and TNBC molecular subtypes/genomics over time with sequential therapies in a TNBC patient with a CR to atezolizumab monotherapy. These data suggest the TiME is pliable and may be manipulated to maximize response to immunotherapy (NCT01375842, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01375842?term=NCT01375842&rank=1 ).

Project description:BackgroundTumor genomic testing (TGT) has become standard-of-care for most patients with advanced/metastatic cancer. Despite established guidelines, patient education prior to TGT is variable or frequently omitted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a concise (3-4 minute) video for patient education prior to TGT.MethodsBased on a quality improvement cycle, an animated video was created to be applicable to any cancer type, incorporating culturally diverse images, available in English and Spanish. Patients undergoing standard-of care TGT were enrolled at a tertiary academic institution and completed validated survey instruments immediately prior to video viewing (T1) and immediately post-viewing (T2). Instruments included: 1) 10-question objective genomic knowledge/understanding; 2) 10-question video message-specific knowledge/recall; 3) 11-question Trust in Physician/Provider; 4) attitudes regarding TGT. The primary objective was change in outcomes from before to after the video was assessed with Wilcoxon signed rank test.ResultsFrom April 2022 to May 2023, a total of 150 participants were enrolled (MBC n=53, LC n=38, OC n=59). For the primary endpoint, there was a significant increase in video message-specific knowledge (median 10 point increase; p<0.0001) with no significant change in genomic knowledge/understanding (p=0.89) or Trust in Physician/Provider (p=0.59). Results for five questions significantly improved, including the likelihood of TGT impact on treatment decision, incidental germline findings, and cost of testing. Improvement in video message-specific knowledge was consistent across demographic groups, including age, income, and education. Individuals with less educational attainment had had greater improvement from before to after video viewing.ConclusionsA concise, 3-4 minute, broadly applicable video incorporating culturally diverse images administered prior to TGT significantly improved video message-specific knowledge across all demographic groups. This resource is publicly available at http://www.tumor-testing.com, with a goal to efficiently educate and empower patients regarding TGT while addressing guidelines within the flow of clinical practice.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05215769.

Dataset Information

Metastatic breast cancer patient perceptions of somatic tumor genomic testing.

Publications

Metastatic breast cancer patient perceptions of somatic tumor genomic testing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets