What do cancer genetic providers want us to know about variant reclassification and recontact that we are not asking? A thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses.

BACKGROUND: Accurate variant classification and relaying reclassified results to patients is critical for hereditary cancer care delivery. Over a 5- to 10-year period, 6%-15% of variants undergo reclassification. As the frequency of reclassifications increases, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients becomes important but remains contentious. METHODS: The authors used inductive thematic analysis to analyze open-ended comments offered by oncologists and genetic counselors (GCs) from a large national survey. RESULTS: Of the 634 oncologists and cancer GCs, 126 (20%) offered substantive free-text comments. Four thematic areas emerged: 1) ambiguity over professional responsibility to recontact, 2) logistical challenges with recontact, 3) importance of inter-institutional communication, and 4) suggested solutions. Some oncologists felt that laboratories, not them, are responsible for recontact; others believed that ordering providers/GCs were responsible; GCs readily acknowledged their own responsibility in recontact but added important caveats. Besides the lack of up-to-date patient contact information, providers raised unique challenges with recontact: financial instability of laboratories, lack of clinical resources, contacting family members, and accumulating burden of reclassifications. There were numerous calls for developing practice guidelines on prioritizing variants for recontact and discussion on whether duty for recontact may be fulfilled via unidirectional, low touch modalities. Potential solutions to recontact including national databases and patient facing databases were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The authors confirm previous themes of stakeholder opinions and add previously unreported contextual details to qualify those themes. Clarifying provider responsibilities through professional guidelines for reclassification and recontact addressing the subthemes identified here will better serve all constituencies.

Transferring care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials: Protocol to evaluate a novel program.

Involving diverse populations in early-phase (phase I and II) cancer clinical trials is critical to informed therapeutic development. However, given the growing costs and complexities of early-phase trials, trial activation and enrollment barriers may be greatest for these studies at healthcare facilities that provide care to the most diverse patient groups, including those in historically underserved communities (e.g., safety-net healthcare systems). To promote diverse and equitable access to early-phase cancer clinical trials, we are implementing a novel program for the transfer of care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials. We will then perform a mixed-methods study to determine perceptions and impact of the program. Specifically, we will screen, recruit, and enroll diverse patients from an urban, integrated safety-net healthcare system to open and active early-phase clinical trials being conducted in a university-based cancer center. To evaluate this novel program, we will: (1) determine program impact and efficiency; and (2) determine stakeholder experience with and perceptions of the program. To achieve these goals, we will conduct preliminary cost analyses of the program. We will also conduct surveys and interviews with patients and caregivers to elucidate program impact, challenges, and areas for improvement. We hypothesize that broadening access to early-phase cancer trials conducted at experienced centers may improve equity and diversity. In turn, such efforts may enhance the efficiency and generalizability of cancer clinical research.