Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

The PiGeOn project: protocol for a longitudinal study examining psychosocial, behavioural and ethical issues and outcomes in cancer tumour genomic profiling

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Genomic sequencing in cancer (both tumour and germline), and development of therapies targeted to tumour genetic status, hold great promise for improvement of patient outcomes. However, the imminent introduction of genomics into clinical practice calls for better understanding of how patients value, experience, and cope with this novel technology and its often complex results. Here we describe a protocol for a novel mixed-methods, prospective study (PiGeOn) that aims to examine patients’ psychosocial, cognitive, affective and behavioural responses to tumour genomic profiling and to integrate a parallel critical ethical analysis of returning results.

Methods

This is a cohort sub-study of a parent tumour genomic profiling programme enrolling patients with advanced cancer. One thousand patients will be recruited for the parent study in Sydney, Australia from 2016 to 2019. They will be asked to complete surveys at baseline, three, and five months. Primary outcomes are: knowledge, preferences, attitudes and values. A purposively sampled subset of patients will be asked to participate in three semi-structured interviews (at each time point) to provide deeper data interpretation. Relevant ethical themes will be critically analysed to iteratively develop or refine normative ethical concepts or frameworks currently used in the return of genetic information.

Discussion

This will be the first Australian study to collect longitudinal data on cancer patients’ experience of tumour genomic profiling. Findings will be used to inform ongoing ethical debates on issues such as how to effectively obtain informed consent for genomic profiling return results, distinguish between research and clinical practice and manage patient expectations. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods will provide comprehensive and critical data on how patients cope with ‘actionable’ and ‘non-actionable’ results. This information is needed to ensure that when tumour genomic profiling becomes part of routine clinical care, ethical considerations are embedded, and patients are adequately prepared and supported during and after receiving results.

Trial registration

Not required for this sub-study, parent trial registration ACTRN12616000908​437.
Literature
1.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia: an overview 2014. Cancer series no 90. Cat. No. Can 88. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.
2.
Glaire MA, Brown M, Church DN, Tomlinson I. Cancer predisposition syndromes: lessons for truly precision medicine. J Pathol. 2017;241(2):226–35.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Han P, Umstead K, Bernhardt B, Green R, Joffe S, Koenig BA, et al. A taxonomy of medical uncertainties in clinical genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine. 2017;
4.
Newson AJ, Leonard SJ, Hall A, Gaff CL. Known unknowns: building an ethics of uncertainty into genomic medicine. BMC Med Genet. 2016;9(1):57.
5.
Gray SW, Hicks-Courant K, Lathan CS, Garraway L, Park ER, Weeks JC. Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2012:JOP. 2012.000626.
6.
Blanchette PS, Spreafico A, Miller FA, Chan K, Bytautas J, Kang S, et al. Genomic testing in cancer: patient knowledge, attitudes, and expectations. Cancer. 2014;120(19):3066–73.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Yusuf RA, Rogith D, Hovick SR, Peterson SK, Burton-Chase AM, Fellman BM, et al. Attitudes toward molecular testing for personalized cancer therapy. Cancer. 2015;121(2):243–50.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Bytautas JP, Bedard PL, Ernst S, Hirte H, et al. Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(3):391–5.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Pellegrini I, Rapti M, Extra JM, Petri-Cal A, Apostolidis T, Ferrero JM, et al. Tailored chemotherapy based on tumour gene expression analysis: breast cancer patients' misinterpretations and positive attitudes. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2012;21(2):242–50.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Liang R, Meiser B, Smith S, Kasparian N, Lewis C, Chin M, et al. Oncology Patients' attitudes toward, and experiences with, somatic mutation tumour testing. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015;11:144.
11.
Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, Hamilton SR, Hammond EH, Hayes DF, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti–epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2091–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, Haanen JB, Ascierto P, Larkin J, et al. Improved survival with Vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2507–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Mann GJ, Thorne H, Balleine RL, Butow PN, Clarke CL, Edkins E, et al. Analysis of cancer risk and BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation prevalence in the kConFab familial breast cancer resource. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(1):R12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Mitchell G, Ballinger ML, Wong S, Hewitt C, James P, Young M-A, et al. High frequency of germline TP53 mutations in a prospective adult-onset sarcoma cohort. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69026.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Hay J, Kaphingst K, Baser R, Li Y, Hensley-Alford S, McBride C. Skin cancer concerns and genetic risk information-seeking in primary care. Public health genomics. 2011;15(2):57–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Rosenberg SM, Tracy MS, Meyer ME, Sepucha K, Gelber S, Hirshfield-Bartek J, et al. Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(6):373–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Cuffe S, Hon H, Qiu X, Tobros K, Wong C-KA, De Souza B, et al. Cancer patients’ acceptance, understanding, and willingness-to-pay for pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2014;24(7):348–55.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Simes RJ, Coates AS. Patient preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: how much benefit is needed? Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;(30):146–52.
19.
Ralph AF, Ager B, Bell ML, Collins IM, Andrews L, Tucker K, et al. Women's preferences for selective estrogen reuptake modulators: an investigation using protection motivation theory. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(1):106–12.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, McMillin MJ, Dent KM, Yu JH, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158((6):1310–9.CrossRef
21.
Kasparian NA, Meiser B, Butow PN, Simpson JM, Mann GJ. Genetic testing for melanoma risk: a prospective cohort study of uptake and outcomes among Australian families. Genetics in medicine. 2009;11(4):265–78.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Cella D, Hughes C, Peterman A, Chang C-H, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, et al. A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the multidimensional impact of Cancer risk assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Health Psychol. 2002;21(6):564.CrossRefPubMed
23.
O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef
24.
Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41(3):209–18.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Herth K. Abbreviated instrument to measure hope: development and psychometric evaluation. J Adv Nurs. 1992;17(10):1251–9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):281–92.CrossRef
28.
Jamal L, Robinson J, Lupo P. Perceptions of next generation sequencing results and plans to use non-actionable findings. Abstract: American Society of Human Genetics; 2015.
29.
Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, Rovner DR, Breer ML, Rothert ML, et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16(1):58–64.CrossRef
30.
Thewes B, Zachariae R, Christensen S, Nielsen T, Butow P. The concerns about recurrence questionnaire: validation of a brief measure of fear of cancer recurrence amongst Danish and Australian breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2015;9(1):68–79.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Quine S. Sampling in non-numerical research. Handbook of Public Health Methods. 1998:539–42.
32.
Norton TR, Manne SL, Rubin S, Carlson J, Hernandez E, Edelson MI, et al. Prevalence and predictors of psychological distress among women with ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(5):919–26.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Analysing qualitative data. In: Alan Bryman, Robert G burgess, editors. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.
34.
Dunn M, Sheehan M, Hope T, Parker M. Toward methodological innovation in empirical ethics research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2012;21(4):466–80.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Moorcraft SY, Marriott C, Peckitt C, Cunningham D, Chau I, Starling N, et al. Patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials and their views on aspects of cancer research: results of a prospective patient survey. Trials. 2016;17(1):17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
37.
Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 1995;311(6996):42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Gupta S, Greenberg S, Grimmett J, Gaston D, Agarwal N, Lowrance W, et al. Inherited DNA repair gene mutations detected by tumor next generation sequencing in urinary tract cancers. Familial Cancer. 2017:1–6.
Metadata
Title
The PiGeOn project: protocol for a longitudinal study examining psychosocial, behavioural and ethical issues and outcomes in cancer tumour genomic profiling
Publication date
01-12-2018
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4310-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Stromal CD10 expression in breast cancer correlates with tumor invasion and cancer stem cell phenotype

Case report

Diffuse parenchymal pulmonary amyloidosis associated with multiple myeloma: a case report and systematic review of the literature

Research article

Differential expression of ABCB5 in BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma cell lines

Case report

Finding the right BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor: a case report of successful treatment of a patient with chronic myeloid leukemia and a V299L mutation using nilotinib

Research article

Trends in the contemporary incidence of colorectal cancer and patient characteristics in the United Kingdom: a population-based cohort study using The Health Improvement Network

Research article

Expression of the immune checkpoint receptor TIGIT in Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits