Genomic testing in cancer: patient knowledge, attitudes, and expectations.

BACKGROUND: Genomic testing in cancer (GTC) characterizes genes that play an important role in the development and growth of a patient's cancer. This form of DNA testing is currently being studied for its ability to guide cancer therapy. The objective of the current study was to describe patients' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations toward GTC. METHODS: A 42-item self-administered GTC questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary group and patient pretesting. The questionnaire was distributed to patients with advanced cancer who were referred to the Princess Margaret Cancer Center for a phase 1 clinical trial or GTC testing. RESULTS: Results were reported from 98 patients with advanced cancer, representing 66% of the patients surveyed. Seventy-six percent of patients were interested in learning more about GTC, and 64% reported that GTC would significantly improve their cancer care. The median score on a 12-item questionnaire to assess knowledge of cancer genomics was 8 of 12 items correct (67%; interquartile range, 7-9 of 12 items correct [58%-75%]). Scores were associated significantly with patients' education level (P < .0001). Sixty-six percent of patients would consent to a needle biopsy, and 39% would consent to an invasive surgical biopsy if required for GTC. Only 48% of patients reported having sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision to pursue GTC whereas 34% of patients indicated a need for formal genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancer are motivated to participate in GTC. Patients require further education to understand the difference between somatic and germline mutations in the context of GTC. Educational programs are needed to support patients interested in pursuing GTC.

Consensus statement on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in children.

OBJECTIVE: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs revolutionized the treatment of central precocious puberty. However, questions remain regarding their optimal use in central precocious puberty and other conditions. The Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and the European Society for Pediatric Endocrinology convened a consensus conference to review the clinical use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in children and adolescents. PARTICIPANTS: When selecting the 30 participants, consideration was given to equal representation from North America (United States and Canada) and Europe, an equal male/female ratio, and a balanced spectrum of professional seniority and expertise. EVIDENCE: Preference was given to articles written in English with long-term outcome data. The US Public Health grading system was used to grade evidence and rate the strength of conclusions. When evidence was insufficient, conclusions were based on expert opinion. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Participants were put into working groups with assigned topics and specific questions. Written materials were prepared and distributed before the conference, revised on the basis of input during the meeting, and presented to the full assembly for final review. If consensus could not be reached, conclusions were based on majority vote. All participants approved the final statement. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in increasing adult height is undisputed only in early-onset (girls <6 years old) central precocious puberty. Other key areas, such as the psychosocial effects of central precocious puberty and their alteration by gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, need additional study. Few controlled prospective studies have been performed with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in children, and many conclusions rely in part on collective expert opinion. The conference did not endorse commonly voiced concerns regarding the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, such as promotion of weight gain or long-term diminution of bone mineral density. Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs for conditions other than central precocious puberty requires additional investigation and cannot be suggested routinely.