Industry involvement in evidence production for genomic medicine: A bibliometric and funding analysis of decision impact studies.

BACKGROUND: Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in genomic medicine, particularly in cancer research. Such studies are designed to provide evidence of clinical utility for genomic tests by evaluating their impact on clinical decision-making. This paper offers insights into understanding of the origins and intentions of these studies through an analysis of the actors and institutions responsible for the production of this new type of evidence. METHODS: We conducted bibliometric and funding analyses of decision impact studies in genomic medicine research. We searched databases from inception to June 2022. The datasets used were primarily from Web of Science. Biblioshiny, additional R-based applications, and Microsoft Excel were used for publication, co-authorship and co-word analyses. RESULTS: 163 publications were included for the bibliometric analysis; a subset of 125 studies were included for the funding analysis. Included publications started in 2010 and increased steadily over time. Decision impact studies were primarily produced for proprietary genomic assays for use in cancer care. The author and affiliate analyses reveal that these studies were produced by 'invisible colleges' of researchers and industry actors with collaborations focused on producing evidence for proprietary assays. Most authors had an industry affiliation, and the majority of studies were funded by industry. While studies were conducted in 22 countries, the majority had at least one author from the USA. DISCUSSION: This study is a critical step in understanding the role of industry in the production of new types of research. Based on the data collected, we conclude that decision impact studies are industry-conceived and -produced evidence. The findings of this study demonstrate the depth of industry involvement and highlight a need for further research into the use of these studies in decision-making for coverage and reimbursement.

Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in cancer prognostic research in recent years. These studies aim to evaluate the impact of a genomic test on decision-making and appear to be a new form of evidence of clinical utility. The objectives of this review were to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care and categorize the types of clinical utility outcomes reported. METHODS: We conducted a search of four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to June 2022. Empirical studies that reported a "decision impact" assessment of a genomic assay on treatment decisions or recommendations for cancer patients were included. We followed scoping review methodology and adapted the Fryback and Thornbury Model to collect and analyze data on clinical utility. The database searches identified 1803 unique articles for title/abstract screening; 269 articles moved to full-text review. RESULTS: 87 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the last 12 years with the majority for breast cancer (72%); followed by other cancers (28%) (lung, prostate, colon). Studies reported on the impact of 19 different proprietary (18) and generic (1) assays. Across all four levels of clinical utility, outcomes were reported for 22 discrete measures, including the impact on provider/team decision-making (100%), provider confidence (31%); change in treatment received (46%); patient psychological impacts (17%); and costing or savings impacts (21%). Based on the data synthesis, we created a comprehensive table of outcomes reported for clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review is a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of decision impact studies and their influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies in cancer care. The results imply that DIS are positioned to provide evidence of clinical utility and impact clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making in cancer care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr.

Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') role in result notification for newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF), given that expanded NBS has increased the number of positive screening test results, drawing attention to the role of PCPs in supporting families. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers (FPs, pediatricians, and midwives) who received a positive CF NBS result for an infant in their practice in the 6 months before the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether the PCP notified the family of the initial positive CF screening result. RESULTS: Data from 321 PCP surveys (response rate of 51%) are reported, including 208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, and 45 midwives. Interviews were completed with 34 PCPs. Most (65%) surveyed PCPs reported notifying the infant's family of the initial positive screening result; 81% agreed that they have an important role to play in NBS; and 88% said it was important for PCPs, rather than the NBS centre, to notify families of initial positive results. With support and information from NBS centres, 68% would be extremely or very confident in doing so; this dropped to 54% when reflecting on their recent reporting experience. More than half (58%) of all PCPs said written point-of-care information from the NBS centre was the most helpful format. Adjusted for relevant factors, written educational information was associated with a lower rate of notifying families than written plus verbal information (risk ratio of 0.79; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92). In the interviews, PCPs emphasized the challenge of balancing required content knowledge with the desire for the news to come from a familiar provider. CONCLUSION: Most PCPs notify families of NBS results and value this role. These data are relevant as NBS programs and other genomic services expand and consider ways of keeping PCPs confident and actively involved.

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Role of primary care providers in caring for infants with positive screening results.

OBJECTIVE: To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') preferred roles and confidence in caring for infants receiving a positive cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) result, as well as management of CF family planning issues, given that expanded NBS has resulted in an increase in positive results. DESIGN: Mailed questionnaire. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Ontario FPs, pediatricians, and midwives identified by Newborn Screening Ontario as having had an infant with a positive CF NBS result in their practice in the previous 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary care providers' preferred roles in providing well-baby care for infants with positive CF screening results. RESULTS: Overall, 321 of 628 (51%) completed surveys (208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, 45 midwives). For well-baby care for infants confirmed to have CF, 77% of PCPs indicated they would not provide total care (ie, 68% would share care with other specialists and 9% would refer to specialists completely); for infants with an inconclusive CF diagnosis, 50% of PCPs would provide total care, 45% would provide shared care, and 5% would refer to a specialist; for CF carriers, 89% of PCPs would provide total care, 9% would provide shared care, and 2% would refer. Half (54%) of PCPs were extremely or very confident in providing reassurance about CF carriers' health. Only 25% knew how to order parents' CF carrier testing; 67% knew how to refer for prenatal diagnosis. Confidence in reassuring parents about the health of CF carrier children was associated with providing total well-baby care for CF carriers (risk ratio of 1.50; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.97) and infants with an inconclusive diagnosis (risk ratio of 3.30; 95% CI 1.34 to 8.16). CONCLUSION: Most PCPs indicated willingness to treat infants with a range of CF NBS results in some capacity. It is concerning that some indicated CF carriers should have specialist involvement and only half were extremely or very confident about reassuring families about carrier status. This raises issues about possible medicalization of those with carrier status, prompting the need for PCP education about genetic disorders and the meaning of genetic test results.

False-Positive Newborn Screening for Cystic Fibrosis and Health Care Use.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence is mixed regarding the impact of false-positive (FP) newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) results on health care use. Using cystic fibrosis (CF) as an example, we determined the association of FP NBS results with health care use in infants and their mothers in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of all infants with FP CF results (N = 1564) and screen-negative matched controls (N = 6256) born between April 2008 and November 2012 using linked health administrative data. Outcomes included maternal and infant physician and emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations from the infant's third to 15th month of age. Negative binomial regression tested associations of NBS status with outcomes, adjusting for infant and maternal characteristics. RESULTS: A greater proportion of infants with FP results had >2 outpatient visits (16.2% vs 13.2%) and >2 hospital admissions (1.5% vs 0.7%) compared with controls; CF-related admissions and emergency department visits were not different from controls. Differences persisted after adjustment, with higher rates of outpatient visits (relative risk 1.39; 95% confidence interval 1.20-1.60) and hospital admissions (relative risk 1.67; 95% confidence interval 1.21-2.31) for FP infants. Stratified models indicated the effect of FP status was greater among those whose primary care provider was a pediatrician. No differences in health care use among mothers were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Higher use of outpatient services among FP infants may relate to a lengthy confirmatory testing process or follow-up carrier testing. However, increased rates of hospitalization might signal heightened perceptions of vulnerability among healthy infants.

Psychosocial Response to Uncertain Newborn Screening Results for Cystic Fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the psychosocial implications of diagnostic uncertainty that result from inconclusive results generated by newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF). STUDY DESIGN: Using a mixed methods prospective cohort study of children who received NBS for CF, we compared psychosocial outcomes of parents whose children who received persistently inconclusive results with those whose children received true positive or screen-negative results. RESULTS: Mothers of infants who received inconclusive results (n = 17), diagnoses of CF (n = 15), and screen-negative results (n = 411) were surveyed; 23 parent interviews were completed. Compared with mothers of infants with true positive/screen-negative results, mothers of infants with inconclusive results reported greater perceived uncertainty (P < .006) but no differences in anxiety or vulnerability (P > .05). Qualitatively, parents valued being connected to experts but struggled with the meaning of an uncertain diagnosis, worried about their infant's health-related vulnerability, and had mixed views about surveillance. CONCLUSION: Inconclusive CF NBS results were not associated with anxiety or vulnerability but led to health-related uncertainty and qualitative concerns. Findings should be considered alongside efforts to optimize protocols for CF screening and surveillance. Educational and psychosocial supports are warranted for these families.

A secondary benefit: the reproductive impact of carrier results from newborn screening for cystic fibrosis.

PURPOSE: Newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) can identify carriers, which is considered a benefit that enables reproductive planning. We examined the reproductive impact of carrier result disclosure of NBS for CF. METHODS: We surveyed mothers of carrier infants after NBS (Time 1) and 1 year later (Time 2) to ascertain intended and reported communication of their infants' carrier results to relatives, carrier testing for themselves/other children, and reproductive decisions. A sub-sample of mothers was also interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2. RESULTS: The response rate was 54%. A little more than half (55%) of mothers underwent carrier testing at Time 1; another 40% of those who intended to undergo testing at Time 1 underwent testing at Time 2. Carrier result communication to relatives was high (92%), but a majority of participants did not expect the results to influence family planning (65%). All interviewed mothers valued learning their infants' carrier results. Some underwent carrier testing and then shared results with family. Others did not use the results or used them in unintended ways. CONCLUSION: Although mothers valued learning carrier results from NBS, they reported moderate uptake of carrier testing and limited influence on family planning. Our study highlights the secondary nature of the benefit of disclosing carrier results of NBS.Genet Med 19 4, 403-411.

Parent Experience With False-Positive Newborn Screening Results for Cystic Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: The risk of psychosocial harm in families of infants with false-positive (FP) newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) results for cystic fibrosis (CF) is a longstanding concern. Whether well designed retrieval and confirmatory testing systems can mitigate risks remains unknown. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods cohort design, we obtained prospective self-report data from mothers of infants with FP CF NBS results 2 to 3 months after confirmatory testing at Ontario's largest follow-up center, and from a randomly selected control sample of mothers of screen negative infants from the same region. Mothers completed a questionnaire assessing experience and psychosocial response. A sample of mothers of FP infants completed qualitative interviews. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four mothers of FP infants (response rate, 55%) and 411 controls (response rate, 47%) completed questionnaires; 54 mothers of FP infants were interviewed. Selected psychosocial response measures did not detect psychosocial distress in newborns or 1 year later (P > .05). Mothers recalled distress during notification of the positive result and in the follow-up testing period related to fear of chronic illness, but valued the screening system of care in mitigating concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Although immediate distress was reported among mothers of FP infants, selected psychometric tools did not detect these concerns. The NBS center from which mothers were recruited minimizes delay between notification and confirmatory testing and ensures trained professionals are communicating results and facilitating follow-up. These factors may explain the presence of minimal psychosocial burden. The screening system reflected herein may be a model for NBS programs working to minimize FP-related psychosocial harm.

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.

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.

The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Increased availability of genetic testing is changing the primary care role in cancer genetics. The perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their role in support of genetic testing has been explored, but little is known about the expectations of patients or the PCP role once genetic test results are received. METHODS: Two sets of open-ended semi-structured interviews were completed with patients (N=25) in a cancer genetic programme in Ontario, Canada, within 4 months of receiving genetic test results and 1 year later; written reports of test results were collected. RESULTS: Patients expected PCPs to play a role in referral for genetic testing; they hoped that PCPs would have sufficient knowledge to appreciate familial risk and supportive attitudes towards genetic testing. Patients had more difficulty in identifying a PCP role following receipt of genetic test results; cancer patients in particular emphasized this as a role for cancer specialists. Still, some patients anticipated an ongoing PCP role comprising risk-appropriate surveillance or reassurance, especially as specialist care diminished. These expectations were complicated by occasional confusion regarding the ongoing care appropriate to genetic test results. CONCLUSIONS: The potential PCP role in cancer genetics is quite broad. Patients expect PCPs to play a role in risk identification and genetics referral. In addition, some patients anticipated an ongoing role for their PCPs after receiving genetic test results. Sustained efforts will be needed to support PCPs in this expansive role if best use is to be made of investments in cancer genetic services.

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.

What does it mean to trust a health system? A qualitative study of Canadian health care values.

OBJECTIVES: We used a qualitative empirical study of Canadians' values toward their health system to develop more meaningful conceptualizations of trust and health systems that can inform the pursuit of more trustworthy health systems. METHODS: We convened nine focus groups in three Canadian cities in 2002 and 2004 in conjunction with a national public opinion telephone survey of Canadians' attitudes and values toward their health system. Health system trust emerged as a significant theme in focus group discussions and was investigated using a modified grounded theory approach. FINDINGS: Respondents construct cleavages and alliances to position themselves in relation to different features of the trusted health system. The health system and Canadian Medicare are identified sources of trust just as are individual health care providers. Core to the trust relationship is the experience of vulnerability which provides the impetus for placing trust (in providers, governments and health systems) or seeds distrust, mistrust and resilience in the same. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a more robust conceptualization of what it means to trust a health system. Policy maker efforts to intervene to restore lost trust could usefully be informed by these findings.

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results.

BACKGROUND: Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm. METHODS: This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000. RESULTS: We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.