The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities.

METHODS

To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives.

CONCLUSION

Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not available: not a clinical trial.

Disparities in Genetic Testing for Heritable Solid-Tumor Malignancies

Genetic testing offers providers a potentially life saving tool for identifying and intervening in high-risk individuals. However, disparities in receipt of genetic testing have been consistently demonstrated and undoubtedly have significant implications for the populations not receiving the standard of care. If correctly used, there is the potential for genetic testing to play a role in decreasing health disparities among individuals of different races and ethnicities. However, if genetic testing continues to revolutionize cancer care while being disproportionately distributed, it also has the potential to widen the existing mortality gap between various racial and ethnic populations.

How practice setting affects family physicians' views on genetic screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.

OBJECTIVE

To explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator.

RESULTS

Thirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

FPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

Universal tumor screening for lynch syndrome: perspectives of patients regarding willingness and informed consent

Aim: Lynch Syndrome is associated with a significant risk of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and other cancers. Universal tumor screening is a strategy to identify high-risk individuals by testing all CRC tumors for molecular features suggestive of Lynch Syndrome. Patient interest in screening and preferences for consent have been underexplored. Methods: A postal survey was administered to CRC patients in a Canadian province. Results: Most patients (81.4%) were willing to have tumors tested if universal tumor screening were available and were willing to discuss test results with family members and healthcare professionals. The majority (62.6%) preferred informed consent be obtained prior to screening. Conclusion: Patients were supportive of universal screening. They expected consent to be obtained, contrary to current practice across Canada and elsewhere.

Healthcare professionals' attitudes toward cancer precision medicine: A systematic review

Use of precision medicine in oncology is burgeoning and can provide patients with new treatment options. However, it is not clear how precision medicine is impacting healthcare professionals (HCPs), particularly with regards to their concerns about this new approach. We therefore synthesized the existing literature on HCPs' attitudes toward cancer precision medicine. We searched four databases for relevant articles. Two reviewers screened eligible articles and extracted data. We assessed the quality of each article using the QualSyst tool. We found 22 articles, representing 4,321 HCPs (63.7% cancer specialists). HCPs held largely positive attitudes toward cancer precision medicine, including their capacity to facilitate treatment decisions and provide prognostic information. However, they also had concerns regarding costs, insurance coverage, limited HCP knowledge about precision medicine, potential misuse, difficulties accessing the tests, and delays in receiving test results. Most HCPs felt that test-related decisions should be shared between families and HCPs. HCPs intended to disclose actionable results but were less inclined to disclose negative/secondary findings. HCPs had a strong preference for genetic counselor involvement when disclosing germline findings. Most HCPs intended to use somatic and germline tests in their future practice but the extent to which pharmacogenomic tests will be used is uncertain. HCPs indicated that additional evidence supporting test utility and increased availability of treatment guidelines could facilitate the use of testing. HCPs held generally positive attitudes toward cancer precision medicine, however there were some key concerns. Addressing concerns early, devising educational support for HCPs and developing guidelines may facilitate the successful implementation of precision medicine trials in the future.

Role of the general practitioner in the care of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: General practitioner and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have an increasing role in referring patients with putative mutation in BRCA1/2 genes for genetics consultation and for long-term follow-up of mutation carriers.

METHODS

We compared the expectations of the GPs' role according to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and to GPs themselves.

RESULTS

Overall, 38% (58/152) of eligible GPs and 70% (176/252) of eligible patients were surveyed. Although 81% of GPs collected the family history, only 24% considered that they know criteria indicating genetics consultation and 39% sufficient knowledge of BRCA1/2 guidelines to answer patients' questions. Twelve% of GPs were aware of the French national guidelines. Among unsatisfied patients, 40% felt that their GP was able to answer (moderately, sufficiently, or completely) specific questions about BRCA1/2 care as compared with 81% in satisfied patients. Only 33% of GPs reported being informed directly by the geneticist about the patients' results. GPs' main expectations for their role in BRCA1/2 carrier care were psychological support and informing relatives about screening (72% and 71%, respectively), which contrasts with the perceptions of patients, who mainly requested medical advice for BRCA1/2-related care (51%).

CONCLUSION

There is an important need for GP training and enhancing interactions between GPs and geneticists to improve the GP's role in BRCA1/2 screening and management.

Face-to-face communication between patients and family physicians in Canada: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Patient-provider communication is critical in primary care. Canada's unique health system, population distribution, and cultural context suggest there is value in addressing the topic in the Canadian context. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize recent Canadian literature to inform practice in primary care settings and identify research agendas for patient-provider communication in Canada.

METHODS

Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework we searched four literature databases: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and EMBASE. We extracted 21,932 articles published between 2010 and 2017. A total of 108 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: information sharing, relationships, health system challenges, and development and use of communication tools.

CONCLUSION

Our review identified a need for Canadian research regarding: communication in primary care with Aboriginal, immigrant, and rural populations; the impact of medical tourism on primary care; and how to improve communication to facilitate continuity of care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Challenges providers face in primary care in Canada include: communicating with linguistically and culturally diverse populations; addressing issues that emerge with the rise of medical tourism; a need for decision aids to improve communication with patients.

Genetic counseling for hereditary cancer: A primer for NPs

Many patients have concerns regarding their family's cancer history and may be appropriate for referral to genetic counseling. This article examines indications for referral for genetic counseling for hereditary cancer, the process of genetic counseling and testing, and ways for NPs to collaborate with genetics providers.

Multigene expression profile testing in breast cancer: is there a role for family physicians?

BACKGROUND

Family physicians (fps) play a role in aspects of personalized medicine in cancer, including assessment of increased risk because of family history. Little is known about the potential role of fps in supporting cancer patients who undergo tumour gene expression profile (gep) testing.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study with qualitative and quantitative components. Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with fps and cancer specialists about the role of fps in breast cancer gep testing were obtained during studies conducted within the pan-Canadian canimpact research program. We determined the number of visits by breast cancer patients to a fp between the first medical oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy, a period when patients might be considering results of gep testing.

RESULTS

The fps and cancer specialists felt that ordering gep tests and explaining the results was the role of the oncologist. A new fp role was identified relating to the fp-patient relationship: supporting patients in making adjuvant therapy decisions informed by gep tests by considering the patient's comorbid conditions, social situation, and preferences. Lack of fp knowledge and resources, and challenges in fp-oncologist communication were seen as significant barriers to that role. Between 28% and 38% of patients visited a fp between the first oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest an emerging role for fps in supporting patients who are making adjuvant treatment decisions after receiving the results of gep testing. For success in this new role, education and point-of-care tools, together with more effective communication strategies between fps and oncologists, are needed.

Value of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in a Probability-Based US Online Sample

BACKGROUND

. While choices about genetic testing are increasingly common for patients and families, and public opinion surveys suggest public interest in genomics, it is not known how adults from the general population value genetic testing for heritable conditions. We sought to understand in a US sample the relative value of the characteristics of genetic tests to identify risk of hereditary colorectal cancer, among the first genomic applications with evidence to support its translation to clinical settings.

METHODS

. A Web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey was conducted with adults age 50 years and older from a probability-based US panel. Participants were asked to make a series of choices between 2 hypothetical blood tests that differed in risk of false-negative test, privacy, and cost. Random parameters logit models were used to estimate preferences, the dollar value of genetic information, and intent to have genetic testing.

RESULTS

. A total of 355 individuals completed choice-format questions. Cost and privacy were more highly valued than reducing the chance of a false-negative result. Most (97% [95% confidence interval (CI)], 95%-99%) would have genetic testing to reduce the risk of dying of colorectal cancer in the best scenario (no false negatives, results disclosed to primary care physician). Only 41% (95% CI, 25%-57%) would have genetic testing in the worst case (20% false negatives, results disclosed to insurance company).

CONCLUSIONS

. Given the characteristics and levels included in the choice, if false-negative test results are unlikely and results are shared with a primary care physician, the majority would have genetic testing. As genomic services become widely available, primary care professionals will need to be increasingly knowledgeable about genetic testing decisions.

Analysis of patient reports on the referral process to two NSW cancer genetic services

To evaluate trends and associations surrounding patient referral to cancer genetics services in NSW. The specific aims of the questionnaire used to collect information were to: (1) quantify the types of cancers being referred, (2) identify the source of referral for the patients, (3) categorise the referral as being either sought by the patient or suggested by the doctor, (4) quantify how often family history was asked, (5) determine who first raised the topic of family history, (6) identify any discouragement faced by patients, (7) clarify the cancer status of patients referred. A comparative patient-reported study was carried out using a questionnaire as the data collection tool in structured short interviews. The questions were aimed at eliciting the patient's understanding of why they were referred to the clinic, whether family history was discussed at the time of referral and who raised the issue via a series of YES/NO and open response questions. Data were collected from March 2012 to August 2012 from two different clinics, St Vincent's Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Sydney and the Hunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle-both in New South Wales, Australia. Written consent was obtained. The study found that specialists were responsible for the majority of the 150 referrals and were more likely to be proactive in referring, as opposed to GPs (Phi and Cramer's V test). Patients reported that at the time of referral their family history was not asked in 13.5 % of cases, despite being significant. In the 131 cases where family history was discussed, it was the patient on approximately 2 in 5 occasions that brought up the topic. The most common types of cancer seen were breast cancer and colorectal. At both services GP referrals were more common then specialist referrals. On three occasions patients sought referral after being notified that the bloods they had collected by their GP for genetic testing were held by the laboratory due to failure to follow protocol. Six patients reported being discouraged to attend when seeking a referral. At the time of referral 58.7 % of patients were considered to be without cancer. Overall, 20 % of patients requested their referral to the cancer genetics clinics. The discussion of family history in the context of familial cancer is key to accurate risk assessment and management advice. Further education of doctors is required as evidenced by the number of patients where family history was not asked and in those patients who had bloods collected by their GP without counselling.

Knowledge of genetic testing for hereditary kidney cancer in Canada is lacking: The results of the Canadian national hereditary kidney cancer needs assessment survey

INTRODUCTON

Treatment of hereditary renal cell carcinoma (HRCC) requires a multidisciplinary approach that may involve medical oncologists, geneticists, genetic counsellors, and urologists. The objective of our survey was to obtain current and representative information about the use and perceived importance of genetic testing for HRCC in Canada.

METHODS

A self-administered web-based survey was provided to Canadian medical oncologists, geneticists, genetic counsellors, and urologists in collaboration with their respective associations. The survey was created through an iterative process in consultation with the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada and contained both quantitative and qualitative components. The survey was designed to be exploratory and results were compared across regions.

RESULTS

The overall response was low (6.6%). Of the respondents, 42%, 33%, 19%, 5% were genetic counsellors, urologists, medical oncologists and medical geneticists, respectively. Of the respondents, 62.7% described their practice as academic, and 37.3% described it as non-academic. Non-academic respondents tended to refer for genetic counselling less frequently than academic (48.6% vs. 67.2%). Most respondents believed that genetic testing for HRCC was available (82.8%), although 47.7% did not know which tests were available. This observation was consistent across provinces. Testing for Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome was given the highest priority among respondents. Limited provider knowledge, clinical guidelines, institutional funding, access, and poor coordination between disciplines were cited as barriers to testing.

INTERPRETATION

There is a need to increase provider knowledge of genetic testing for HRCC. These findings support the development of practice guidelines and national strategies to improve coordination of specialists and access to genetics services. Limitations of the present study include low survey response which did not allow for inferential analysis by geographic region or respondent specialty.

Ordering the correct genetic test: implications for oncology and primary care healthcare professionals

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is becoming increasingly more common. Once a mutation is detected in a family, other family members can undergo single-site mutation testing to determine if they have inherited the increased risk for developing cancer, with the intent of providing tailored and appropriate cancer prevention and early detection measures. Ordering the correct single-site test is critical to providing appropriate recommendations for cancer prevention and early detection.

Consulting the community: public expectations and attitudes about genetics research

Genomic discoveries and technologies promise numerous opportunities for improving health. Key to these potential health improvements, however, are health-care consumers' understanding and acceptance of these new developments. We identified community groups and invited them to a public information-consultation session in order to explore public awareness, perception and expectations about genetics and genomics research. One hundred and four members of seven community groups in Newfoundland, Canada took part in the community sessions. Content analysis of participant comments revealed they were largely hopeful about genetics research in its capacity to improve health; however, they did not accept such research uncritically. Complex issues arose during the community consultations, including the place of genetics in primary care, the value of genetics for personal health, and concerns about access to and uses of genetic information. Participants unequivocally endorsed the value of public engagement with these issues. The rapid pace of discoveries in genomics research offers exciting opportunities to improve population health. However, public support will be crucial to realize health improvements. Our findings suggest that regular, transparent dialog between researchers and the public could allow a greater understanding of the research process, as well as assist in the design of efficient and effective genetic health services, informed by the public that will use them.

Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening

Including low penetrance genomic variants in population-based screening might enable personalization of screening intensity and follow up. The application of genomics in this way requires formal evaluation. Even if clinically beneficial, uptake would still depend on the attitudes of target populations. We developed a deliberative workshop on two hypothetical applications (in colorectal cancer and newborn screening) in which we applied stepped, neutrally-framed, information sets. Data were collected using nonparticipant observation, free-text comments by individual participants, and a structured survey. Qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Eight workshops were conducted with 170 individuals (120 colorectal cancer screening and 50 newborn screening for type 1 diabetes). The use of information sets promoted informed deliberation. In both contexts, attitudes appeared to be heavily informed by assessments of the likely validity of the test results and its personal and health care utility. Perceived benefits included the potential for early intervention, prevention, and closer monitoring while concerns related to costs, education needs regarding the probabilistic nature of risk, the potential for worry, and control of access to personal genomic information. Differences between the colorectal cancer and newborn screening groups appeared to reflect different assessments of potential personal utility, particularly regarding prevention.

Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: a mixed method study

BACKGROUND

The strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed.

METHODS

A mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments.

RESULTS

Data was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.

Theranostics in primary care: pharmacogenomics tests and beyond

Theranostics represents a broadening in the scope of personalized medicine to include companion diagnostics for health interventions ranging from drugs to vaccines, as well as individual susceptibility to disease. Surprisingly, in the course of this broadening of personalized medicine discourse, relatively little attention has been paid to primary care (as compared with tertiary healthcare settings) despite its vast patient population and being a crucial entry point to health services. Recent advances in pharmacogenomics (PGx), a classical theranostics application whereby genotyping and/or gene expression-based tests are used for targeted or optimal therapy, revealed new opportunities to characterize more precisely human genomic variation and the ways in which it contributes to person-to-person and population variations in drug response. In the immediate foreseeable future, the primary-care physicians are expected to play an ever increasing crucial role in PGx-based prescribing in order to reduce the rates of adverse drug events and improve drug efficacy, yet PGx testing in primary care remains limited. In this article, the authors review the advances in PGx applications, the barriers for their adoption in the clinic from a primary care point of view and the efforts that are being undertaken to move PGx forward in this hitherto neglected application context of theranostic medicine. Finally, the authors propose several salient recommendations, including a 5-year forecast, to accelerate the current convergence between PGx and primary care.

Barriers for integrating personalized medicine into clinical practice: a qualitative analysis

Personalized medicine-tailoring interventions based on individual's genetic information-will likely change routine clinical practice in the future. Yet, how practitioners plan to apply genetic information to inform medical decision making remains unclear. We aimed to investigate physician's perception about the future role of personalized medicine, and to identify the factors that influence their decision in using genetic testing in their practice. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups in three health regions (Fraser, Vancouver coastal, and Interior) in British Columbia, Canada. In the focus groups, participants discussed four topics on personalized medicine: (i) physicians' general understanding, (ii) advantages and disadvantages, (iii) potential impact and role in future clinical practice, and (iv) perceived barriers to integrating personalized medicine into clinical practice. Approximately 36% (n = 9) of physicians self-reported that they were not familiar with the concept of personalized medicine. After introducing the concept, the majority of physicians (68%, n = 19 of 28) were interested in incorporating personalized medicine in their practice, provided they have access to the necessary knowledge and tools. Participants mostly believed that genetic developments will directly affect their practice in the future. The key concerns highlighted were physician's access to clinical guidelines and training opportunities for the use of genetic testing and data interpretation. Despite the challenges that personalized medicine can create, in general, physicians in the focus groups expressed strong interest in using genetic information in their practice if they have access to the necessary knowledge and tools.

Attitudes and practices among internists concerning genetic testing

Many questions remain concerning whether, when, and how physicians order genetic tests, and what factors are involved in their decisions. We surveyed 220 internists from two academic medical centers about their utilization of genetic testing. Rates of genetic utilizations varied widely by disease. Respondents were most likely to have ordered tests for Factor V Leiden (16.8 %), followed by Breast/Ovarian Cancer (15.0 %). In the past 6 months, 65 % had counseled patients on genetic issues, 44 % had ordered genetic tests, 38.5 % had referred patients to a genetic counselor or geneticist, and 27.5 % had received ads from commercial labs for genetic testing. Only 4.5 % had tried to hide or disguise genetic information, and <2 % have had patients report genetic discrimination. Only 53.4 % knew of a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients. Most rated their knowledge as very/somewhat poor concerning genetics (73.7 %) and guidelines for genetic testing (87.1 %). Most felt needs for more training on when to order tests (79 %), and how to counsel patients (82 %), interpret results (77.3 %), and maintain privacy (80.6 %). Physicians were more likely to have ordered a genetic test if patients inquired about genetic testing (p < .001), and if physicians had a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients (p < .002), had referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor in the past 6 months, had more comfort counseling patients about testing (p < .019), counseled patients about genetics, larger practices (p < .032), fewer African-American patients (p < .027), and patients who had reported genetic discrimination (p < .044). In a multiple logistic regression, ordering a genetic test was associated with patients inquiring about testing, having referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor and knowing how to order tests. These data suggest that physicians recognize their knowledge deficits, and are interested in training. These findings have important implications for future medical practice, research, and education.

Preferences for genetic testing to identify hereditary colorectal cancer: perspectives of high-risk patients, community members, and clinicians

The aim of this study was to establish key characteristics that patients, consumers, and health professionals value regarding genetic testing (GT) and personalized medicine using the example of GT for hereditary Lynch syndrome. We conducted a series of focus groups with individuals recruited from a clinic that follows those at high risk for hereditary cancer, individuals recruited from the community, physicians, and genetic counselors. Participants were presented with clinical scenarios about Lynch syndrome testing and asked to identify characteristics that they perceived as important in making decisions about GT. Forty-two participants (19 community members, 8 high-risk and cancer patients, 3 genetic counselors, and 8 physicians) participated. Among community members and patients, the most frequently discussed considerations were the personal impact of GT and family impact, respectively. Among physicians, the most frequently discussed topic was the characteristics of genomic services (e.g., test invasiveness); among genetic counselors, the most frequently discussed topic was evidence and recommendations. A variety of test characteristics were important in decision making about GT. High-risk patients, community members, and health care providers had different priorities. Health care professionals should be aware of differences between their own considerations about GT and those that are important to patients.

Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing

To assess the educational needs of North Carolina primary care physicians (PCPs) about direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, surveys were mailed to 2,402 family and internal medicine providers in North Carolina. Out of 382 respondents, 323 (85%) felt unprepared to answer patient questions and 282 (74%) reported wanting to learn about DTC genetic testing. A total of 148 (39%) were aware of DTC genetic testing. Among these, 63 (43%) thought DTC genetic testing was clinically useful. PCPs who felt either unprepared to answer patient questions (OR = 0.354, p = 0.01) or that DTC genetic testing was clinically useful (OR = 5.783, p = 0.00) were more likely to want to learn about DTC genetic testing. PCPs are interested in learning about DTC genetic testing, but are mostly unaware of DTC testing and feel unprepared to help patients with DTC testing results. Familiar and trusted channels that provide the information and tools PCPs need to help answer patient's questions and manage their care should be used when creating educational programs.

Personalised medicine in Canada: a survey of adoption and practice in oncology, cardiology and family medicine

Introduction In order to provide baseline data on genetic testing as a key element of personalised medicine (PM), Canadian physicians were surveyed to determine roles, perceptions and experiences in this area. The survey measured attitudes, practice, observed benefits and impacts, and barriers to adoption. Methods A self-administered survey was provided to Canadian oncologists, cardiologists and family physicians and responses were obtained online, by mail or by fax. The survey was designed to be exploratory. Data were compared across specialties and geography. Results The overall response rate was 8.3%. Of the respondents, 43%, 30% and 27% were family physicians, cardiologists and oncologists, respectively. A strong majority of respondents agreed that genetic testing and PM can have a positive impact on their practice; however, only 51% agreed that there is sufficient evidence to order such tests. A low percentage of respondents felt that they were sufficiently informed and confident practicing in this area, although many reported that genetic tests they have ordered have benefited their patients. Half of the respondents agreed that genetic tests that would be useful in their practice are not readily available. A lack of practice guidelines, limited provider knowledge and lack of evidence-based clinical information were cited as the main barriers to practice. Differences across provinces were observed for measures relating to access to testing and the state of practice. Differences across specialties were observed for the state of practice, reported benefits and access to testing. Conclusions Canadian physicians recognise the benefits of genetic testing and PM; however, they lack the education, information and support needed to practice effectively in this area. Variability in practice and access to testing across specialties and across Canada was observed. These results support a need for national strategies and resources to facilitate physician knowledge, training and practice in PM.