A health services research agenda for cellular, molecular and genomic technologies in cancer care

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.

METHODS

Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.

RESULTS

CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

Using a Historical Lens to Envision the Next Generation of Genomic Translation Research

BACKGROUND

The past 20 years have witnessed successive and exponential advances in genomic discovery and technology, with a broad scientific imperative pushing for continual advancements. The most consistent critique of these advances is that they have vastly outpaced translation of new knowledge into improvements in public health and medicine.

METHODS

We employ a historical and epistemological analysis to characterize how prevailing scientific meta-narratives have shaped the pace and priorities of research applying genomics to health promotion. We use four 'pivotal events' - the genetic characterization of Down syndrome, the launch of the Human Genome Research Project, the discovery of BRCA1, and the emergence of direct-to- consumer genetic testing - to illustrate how these scientific meta-narratives have inhibited genomic translation research.

RESULTS

The notion that discovery should precede translation research has over-focused translation research on the latest genetic testing platform. The idea that genetic-related research has an exceptional potential for public harm has encouraged research on worst case scenarios. The perceived competition between genetics and social determinants of health has discouraged a unified research agenda to move genomic translation forward.

CONCLUSION

We make a case for creating new scientific meta-narratives in which discovery and translation research agendas are envisioned as an interdependent enterprise.

Capturing the clinical utility of genomic testing: medical recommendations following pediatric microarray

Interpretation of pediatric chromosome microarray (CMA) results presents diagnostic and medical management challenges. Understanding management practices triggered by CMA will inform clinical utility and resource planning. Using a retrospective cohort design, we extracted clinical and management-related data from the records of 752 children with congenital anomalies and/or developmental delay who underwent CMA in an academic pediatric genetics clinic (2009–2011). Frequency distributions and relative rates (RR) of post-CMA medical recommendations in children with reportable and benign CMA results were calculated. Medical recommendations were provided for 79.6% of children with reportable results and 62.0% of children with benign results. Overall, recommendations included specialist consultation (40.8%), imaging (32.5%), laboratory investigations (17.2%), surveillance (4.6%), and family investigations (4.9%). Clinically significant variants and variants of uncertain clinical significance were associated with higher and slightly higher rates of management recommendations, respectively, compared with benign/no variants (RR=1.34; 95% CI (1.22–1.47); RR=1.23; 95% CI (1.09–1.38)). Recommendation rates for clinically significant versus uncertain results depended upon how uncertainty was classified (RR_broad=1.09; 95% CI (0.99–1.2); RR_narrow=1.12; 95% CI (1.02–1.24)). Recommendation rates also varied by the child's age and provider type. In conclusion, medical recommendations follow CMA for the majority of children. Compared with benign CMA results, clinically significant CMA variants are a significant driver of pediatric medical recommendations. Variants of uncertain clinical significance drive recommendations, but to a lesser extent. As a broadening range of specialists will need to respond to CMA results, targeted capacity building is warranted.

Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care

Developments in genomics, including next-generation sequencing technologies, are expected to enable a more personalized approach to clinical care, with improved risk stratification and treatment selection. In oncology, personalized medicine is particularly advanced and increasingly used to identify oncogenic variants in tumor tissue that predict responsiveness to specific drugs. Yet, the translational research needed to validate these technologies will be conducted in patients with late-stage cancer and is expected to produce results of variable clinical significance and incidentally identify genetic risks. To explore the experiential context in which much of personalized cancer care will be developed and evaluated, we conducted a qualitative interview study alongside a pilot feasibility study of targeted DNA sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. We recruited 29/73 patients and 14/17 physicians; transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analyzed for thematic patterns using an interpretive descriptive approach. Patient hopes of benefit from research participation were enhanced by the promise of novel and targeted treatment but challenged by non-findings or by limited access to relevant trials. Family obligations informed a willingness to receive genetic information, which was perceived as burdensome given disease stage or as inconsequential given faced challenges. Physicians were optimistic about long-term potential but conservative about immediate benefits and mindful of elevated patient expectations; consent and counseling processes were expected to mitigate challenges from incidental findings. These findings suggest the need for information and decision tools to support physicians in communicating realistic prospects of benefit, and for cautious approaches to the generation of incidental genetic information.

Rethinking our public health genetics research paradigm

Since the sequencing of the human genome, tremendous resources have been dedicated to understanding how genetic determinants may drive the production of disease. Despite some successes, the promise of genetics research in these areas remains largely unrealized. The focus on isolating individual (or clusters of) genes that may be associated with narrowly defined phenotypes in large part explains this discrepancy. In particular, efforts to identify genotypes associated with narrow phenotypes force the field to use study designs that capitalize on homogeneous samples to minimize the potential for competing influences or confounders, which imposes important limitations on understanding the role of genes in human health. We argue that a population health genetics that incorporates genetics into large, multiwave, multilevel cohorts has the best potential to clarify how genes, in combination and with the environment, jointly influence population health.

Treatment Choices Based on OncotypeDx in the Breast Oncology Care Setting

Introduction. This study aimed to evaluate whether OncotypeDx test results predict receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients who received an OncotypeDx recurrence score (RS). Materials and Methods. Pathology records were used to identify breast cancer patients who had OncotypeDx testing between December 2004 and January 2009 (n = 118). Patient sociodemographic information, tumor characteristics, RS, and treatment-specific data were collected via chart review. RS was classified as follows: low (RS ≤ 17), intermediate (RS = 18–30), or high (RS ≥ 31). Bivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between adjuvant chemotherapy receipt and each sociodemographic and clinical characteristic; significant sociodemographic and clinical variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression model. Results. In multivariable analysis controlling for tumor size, histologic grade, and nuclear grade, only RS remained significantly associated with chemotherapy uptake. Relative to low RS, an intermediate (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 21.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.62–237.52) or high (AOR, 15.07; 95% CI, 1.28–288.21) RS was associated with a greater odds of chemotherapy uptake. Discussion. Results indicate that RS was significantly associated with adjuvant chemotherapy uptake, suggesting that OncotypeDx results were used to inform treatment decision making, although it is unclear if and how the information was conveyed to patients.

A population approach to precision medicine

The term P4 medicine is used to denote an evolving field of medicine that uses systems biology approaches and information technologies to enhance wellness rather than just treat disease. Its four components include predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory medicine. In the current paper, it is argued that in order to fulfill the promise of P4 medicine, a "fifth P" must be integrated-the population perspective-into each of the other four components. A population perspective integrates predictive medicine into the ecologic model of health; applies principles of population screening to preventive medicine; uses evidence-based practice to personalize medicine; and grounds participatory medicine on the three core functions of public health: assessment, policy development, and assurance. Population sciences-including epidemiology; behavioral, social, and communication sciences; and health economics, implementation science, and outcomes research-are needed to show the value of P4 medicine. Balanced strategies that implement both population- and individual-level interventions can best maximize health benefits, minimize harm, and avoid unnecessary healthcare costs.

Barriers to the use of personalized medicine in breast cancer

PURPOSE

Personalized medicine--the use of genomics and molecular diagnostics to direct care decisions--may improve outcomes by more accurately individualizing treatment to patients. Using qualitative research, we explored care delivery barriers to the use of personalized medicine for patients with breast cancer using examples of BRCA and gene expression profile testing.

METHODS

We conducted 51 interviews with multidisciplinary stakeholders in breast cancer care: clinicians (n = 25) from three academic and nine nonacademic organizations, executives (n = 20) from four major private insurers, and patient advocates (n = 6).

RESULTS

Barriers were common to the BRCA and gene expression profile tests and were classified under two categories: poor coordination of tests relative to treatment decisions and reimbursement-related disincentives. Perception of specific barriers varied across groups. Difficulty coordinating diagnostics relative to decisions was the most frequent concern by clinicians (60%), but only 35% of payers and 17% of advocates noted this barrier. For 60% of payers, drug- and procedure-based reimbursement was a significant barrier, but only 40% of clinicians and none of the advocates expressed the same concern. The opinion that patient out-of-pocket expenses are a barrier varied significantly between advocates and clinicians (83% v 20%, P < .007), and advocates and payers (83% v 15%, P < .004). Barriers were reported to result in postponement or avoidance of tests, delayed treatment decisions, and proceeding with decisions before test results.

CONCLUSION

Poorly coordinated diagnostic testing and the current oncology reimbursement model are barriers to the use of genomic and molecular diagnostic tests in cancer care.

Population sciences, translational research, and the opportunities and challenges for genomics to reduce the burden of cancer in the 21st century

Advances in genomics and related fields are promising tools for risk assessment, early detection, and targeted therapies across the entire cancer care continuum. In this commentary, we submit that this promise cannot be fulfilled without an enhanced translational genomics research agenda firmly rooted in the population sciences. Population sciences include multiple disciplines that are needed throughout the translational research continuum. For example, epidemiologic studies are needed not only to accelerate genomic discoveries and new biological insights into cancer etiology and pathogenesis, but to characterize and critically evaluate these discoveries in well-defined populations for their potential for cancer prediction, prevention and response to treatment. Behavioral, social, and communication sciences are needed to explore genomic-modulated responses to old and new behavioral interventions, adherence to therapies, decision making across the continuum, and effective use in health care. Implementation science, health services, outcomes research, comparative effectiveness research, and regulatory science are needed for moving validated genomic applications into practice and for measuring their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and unintended consequences. Knowledge synthesis, evidence reviews, and economic modeling of the effects of promising genomic applications will facilitate policy decisions and evidence-based recommendations. Several independent and multidisciplinary panels have recently made specific recommendations for enhanced research and policy infrastructure to inform clinical and population research for moving genomic innovations into the cancer care continuum. An enhanced translational genomics and population sciences agenda is urgently needed to fulfill the promise of genomics in reducing the burden of cancer.

Translational research in cancer genetics: the road less traveled

Gene discoveries in cancer have the potential for clinical and public health applications. To take advantage of such discoveries, a translational research agenda is needed to take discoveries from the bench to population health impact. To assess the current status of translational research in cancer genetics, we analyzed the extramural grant portfolio of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) from Fiscal Year 2007, as well as the cancer genetic research articles published in 2007. We classified both funded grants and publications as follows: T0 as discovery research; T1 as research to develop a candidate health application (e.g., test or therapy); T2 as research that evaluates a candidate application and develops evidence-based recommendations; T3 as research that assesses how to integrate an evidence-based recommendation into cancer care and prevention; and T4 as research that assesses health outcomes and population impact. We found that 1.8% of the grant portfolio and 0.6% of the published literature was T2 research or beyond. In addition to discovery research in cancer genetics, a translational research infrastructure is urgently needed to methodically evaluate and translate gene discoveries for cancer care and prevention.

The Scientific Foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop

The increasing availability of personal genomic tests has led to discussions about the validity and utility of such tests and the balance of benefits and harms. A multidisciplinary workshop was convened by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the scientific foundation for using personal genomics in risk assessment and disease prevention and to develop recommendations for targeted research. The clinical validity and utility of personal genomics is a moving target with rapidly developing discoveries but little translation research to close the gap between discoveries and health impact. Workshop participants made recommendations in five domains: (1) developing and applying scientific standards for assessing personal genomic tests; (2) developing and applying a multidisciplinary research agenda, including observational studies and clinical trials to fill knowledge gaps in clinical validity and utility; (3) enhancing credible knowledge synthesis and information dissemination to clinicians and consumers; (4) linking scientific findings to evidence-based recommendations for use of personal genomics; and (5) assessing how the concept of personal utility can affect health benefits, costs, and risks by developing appropriate metrics for evaluation. To fulfill the promise of personal genomics, a rigorous multidisciplinary research agenda is needed.

Postal survey of physicians and laboratories: practices and perceptions of molecular oncology testing

Background

Molecular oncology testing (MOT) to detect genomic alterations underlying cancer holds promise for improved cancer care. Yet knowledge limitations regarding the delivery of testing services may constrain the translation of scientific advancements into effective health care.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, postal survey of active cancer physicians in Ontario, Canada (N = 611) likely to order MOT, and cancer laboratories (N = 99) likely to refer (i.e., referring laboratories) or conduct (i.e., testing laboratories) MOT in 2006, to assess respondents' perceptions of the importance and accessibility of MOT and their preparedness to provide it.

Results

54% of physicians, 63% of testing laboratories and 60% of referring laboratories responded. Most perceived MOT to be important for treatment, diagnosis or prognosis now, and in 5 years (61% – 100%). Yet only 45% of physicians, 59% of testing labs and 53% of referring labs agreed that patients in their region were receiving MOT that is indicated as a standard of care. Physicians and laboratories perceived various barriers to providing MOT, including, among 70% of physicians, a lack of clear guidelines regarding clinical indications, and among laboratories, a lack of funding (73% – 100%). Testing laboratories were confident of their ability to determine whether and which MOT was indicated (77% and 82% respectively), and perceived that key elements of formal and continuing education were helpful (75% – 100%). By contrast, minorities of physicians were confident of their ability to assess whether and which MOT was indicated (46% and 34% respectively), and while majorities considered various continuing educational resources helpful (68% – 75%), only minorities considered key elements of formal education helpful in preparing for MOT (17% – 43%).

Conclusion

Physicians and laboratory professionals were enthusiastic about the value of MOT for cancer care but most did not believe patients were gaining adequate access to clinically necessary testing. Further, our results suggest that many were ill equipped as individual stakeholders, or as a coordinated system of referral and interpretation, to provide MOT. These challenges should inspire educational, training and other interventions to ensure that developments in molecular oncology can result in optimal cancer care.