1
|
Stackland S, Schnabel D, Dinan MA, Presley CJ, Gross CP. Strength of evidence underlying the CMS-FDA parallel review of comprehensive genomic profiling tests in the cancer setting. J Natl Cancer Inst 2025; 117:144-151. [PMID: 39288939 PMCID: PMC11717411 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djae196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 08/12/2024] [Indexed: 09/19/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although use of comprehensive genomic profiling was approved by a novel Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-US Food and Drug Administration parallel review process, the quality of the supporting evidence is unclear. We evaluated the rigor of the peer-reviewed literature cited in the National Coverage Determination Memorandum for the FoundationOneCDx (Foundation Medicine, Inc, Cambridge, MA). METHODS We identified studies cited in the memorandum. Two independent researchers evaluated each study and applied a modified version of the Fryback and Thornbury hierarchy, an established framework for evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. Studies focused on clinical outcomes were then categorized by study design, guided by recommendations from the Center for Medical Technology Policy. RESULTS The sample included 113 scientific studies. The majority (60/113 [53.1%]) used comprehensive genomic profiling outside the course of clinical care, and there was substantive heterogeneity in the cancer types assessed and the sequencing depth. We found 8 (7.1%) studies that assessed whether clinical care had changed due to comprehensive genomic profiling testing, and 38 (33.6%) assessed clinical outcomes. After excluding studies that tested for 5 or fewer genomic alterations, 25 remained in the clinical outcomes sample: Of these, only 1 included a comparator group that did not receive comprehensive genomic profiling testing. Only 4 studies used FoundationOneCDx as the primary genomic test, none of which compared the outcomes of patients who did vs did not receive the test. CONCLUSIONS The findings indicate gaps in the supporting evidence for broad comprehensive genomic profiling use in patients with solid tumors. More rigorous studies that assess clinical utility would better inform the approval process for novel diagnostic tests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Michaela A Dinan
- Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
- Cancer Outcomes Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Carolyn J Presley
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Cary P Gross
- Cancer Outcomes Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Veney DJ, Wei LY, Toland AE, Presley CJ, Hampel HL, Padamsee TJ, Lee CN, Irvin WJ, Bishop MJ, Kim JJ, Hovick SR, Senter LA, Stover DG. A video intervention to improve patient understanding of tumor genomic testing in patients with cancer. Cancer Med 2024; 13:e70095. [PMID: 39258462 PMCID: PMC11387988 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.70095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Revised: 06/14/2024] [Accepted: 07/29/2024] [Indexed: 09/12/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Tumor genomic testing (TGT) is standard-of-care for most patients with advanced/metastatic cancer. Despite established guidelines, patient education prior to TGT is frequently omitted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a concise 4 min video for patient education prior to TGT. METHODS Based 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 survey instruments prior to video viewing (T1) and immediately post-viewing (T2). Instruments included: (1) 10-question objective genomic knowledge; (2) 10-question video message-specific knowledge; (3) 11-question Trust in Provider; (4) attitudes regarding TGT. RESULTS A total of 150 participants were enrolled. For the primary objective, 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. CONCLUSIONS A concise, 3-4 min, 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deloris J. Veney
- Division of Medical OncologyOhio State University Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Lai Y. Wei
- Department of Biomedical InformaticsOhio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Amanda E. Toland
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal MedicineThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbusOhioUSA
- Department of Cancer Biology and GeneticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Carolyn J. Presley
- Division of Medical OncologyOhio State University Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Heather L. Hampel
- Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics ResearchCity of Hope National Medical CenterDuarteCaliforniaUSA
| | - Tasleem J. Padamsee
- Division of Health Services Management and PolicyCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Clara N. Lee
- Division of Health Services Management and PolicyCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
- Present address:
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | | | | | - James J. Kim
- Bon Secours‐Mercy Health St. ElizabethYoungstownOhioUSA
| | | | - Leigha A. Senter
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal MedicineThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Daniel G. Stover
- Division of Medical OncologyOhio State University Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbusOhioUSA
- Department of Biomedical InformaticsOhio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
- Pelotonia Institute for Immuno‐Oncology, Ohio State University Comprehensive CancerColumbusOhioUSA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Veney D, Wei L, Toland AE, Presley CJ, Hampel H, Padamsee TJ, Lee CN, Irvin WJ, Bishop M, Kim J, Hovick SR, Senter L, Stover DG. A Video Intervention to Improve Patient Understanding of Tumor Genomic Testing in Patients with Cancer. MEDRXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES 2023:2023.12.05.23299443. [PMID: 38106014 PMCID: PMC10723483 DOI: 10.1101/2023.12.05.23299443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2023]
Abstract
Background Tumor 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. Methods Based 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. Results From 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. Conclusions A 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 Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05215769.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deloris Veney
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
| | - Lai Wei
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
| | - Amanda E. Toland
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
- Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
| | - Carolyn J. Presley
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
| | - Heather Hampel
- Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010
| | - Tasleem J. Padamsee
- Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
| | - Clara N. Lee
- Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
| | - William J. Irvin
- Bon Secours Cancer Institute at St. Francis, Richmond, Virginia, USA
| | | | - James Kim
- Bon Secours-Mercy Health St. Elizabeth, Youngstown, Ohio, USA
| | - Shelly R. Hovick
- School of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
| | - Leigha Senter
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
| | - Daniel G. Stover
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
- Pelotonia Institute for Immuno-Oncology, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer, Columbus, OH, 43210 USA
| |
Collapse
|