Chemotherapy safe handling practices in Ethiopia: A comprehensive multi-center evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing incidence of cancer and capacity for cancer care in Ethiopia has led to an upsurge in chemotherapy use in the country; however, studies indicate that there is a gap in the safe handling of chemotherapy by healthcare workers. There exists a need to understand if such unsafe practices occur in Ethiopia and, if so, which areas along the chemotherapy life cycle need the most improvement. METHODS: This study utilized a multi-method design through an online survey administered to health care professionals and evaluative site visits of eight cancer units in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to understand the current conditions of chemotherapy handling. In addition, a survey was conducted among Ethiopian health care professionals from across the country. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of survey participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that there are systems in place to identify, prevent, and address chemotherapy hazards in their workplace, and 71% of respondents denied having an active and effective health and safety committee and/or worker health and safety representative where they work. At evaluative site visits, only 30% of health care workers met the minimum guidelines for proper hand hygiene, and 20% of health care workers used adequate Personal Protective Equipment according to guidelines across the chemotherapy lifecycle. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate an urgent need for implementation of evidence-based interventions to improve chemotherapy handling in Ethiopia so that all patients and health care workers are protected from the hazardous toxicities of these drugs.

Challenges and opportunities for Lynch syndrome cascade testing in the United States.

Lynch syndrome is an underdiagnosed genetic condition that increases lifetime colorectal, endometrial, and other cancer risk. Cascade testing in relatives is recommended to increase diagnoses and enable access to cancer prevention services, yet uptake is limited due to documented multi-level barriers. Individual barriers such as feelings of fear, guilt, and anxiety and limited knowledge about Lynch syndrome as well as interpersonal barriers including complex family dynamics and language barriers limit family communication about Lynch syndrome and prevent uptake of genetic screening for relatives. Organizational and environmental barriers including a shortage of genetics professionals, high costs, and fears of discrimination also reduce cascade testing. These multi-level barriers may disproportionately impact underserved populations in the United States, such as individuals with lower incomes, limited English-speaking proficiency, lower educational attainment, and inadequate access to health systems. Multi-level facilitators of cascade testing include interpersonal support from family members, peers, and healthcare providers, educational resources, and motivation to improve family health. Taken together, these barriers and facilitators demonstrate a need for interventions and strategies that address multi-level factors to increase cascade testing in families with Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer conditions. We provide an example of a cascade testing intervention that has been developed for use in individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome and discuss the variety of current approaches to addressing these multi-level barriers.

Measuring Costs of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention for Patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Administrative Claims Data.

INTRODUCTION: Familial hypercholesterolemia is a common genetic condition that significantly increases an individual's risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, and cardiac death and is a candidate for population-wide screening programs. Economic analyses of strategies to identify and treat familial hypercholesterolemia are limited by a lack of real-world cost estimates for screening services and medications for reducing cardiovascular risk in this population. METHODS: We estimated the cost of lipid panel testing in patients with hyperlipidemia and the cost of statins, ezetimibe, and PCKS9 inhibitors in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia from a commercial claims database and report costs and charges per panel and prescription by days' supply. RESULTS: The mean cost for a 90-day supply for statins was $183.33, 2.3 times the mean cost for a 30-day supply at $79.35. PCSK9 inhibitors generated the highest mean costs among medications used by patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. CONCLUSIONS: Lipid testing and lipid-lowering medications for cardiovascular disease prevention generate substantial real-world costs which can be used to improve cost-effectiveness models of familial hypercholesterolemia screening and care management.

Genetic Testing and Other Healthcare Use by Black and White Individuals in a Genomic Sequencing Study.

INTRODUCTION: Early adopters play a critical role in the diffusion of medical innovations by spreading awareness, increasing acceptability, and driving demand. Understanding the role of race in the context of other characteristics of potential early adopters can shed light on disparities seen in the early implementation of genomic medicine. We aimed to understand the association between self-identified race and individual experience with genetic testing outside of the research context. METHODS: We assessed factors associated with the odds of having ever received genetic testing prior to enrollment in a genomic sequencing study among 674 self-identified white and 407 self-identified African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean ("Black") individuals. RESULTS: Controlling for individual determinants of healthcare use (demographics, personality traits, knowledge and attitudes, and health status), identifying as Black was associated with lower odds of prior genetic testing (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.27-0.68], p < 0.001). In contrast, self-identified race was not associated with the use of non-genetic clinical screening tests (e.g., echocardiogram, colonoscopy). Black and white individuals were similar on self-reported personality traits tied to early adoption but differed by sociodemographic and resource facilitators of early adoption. CONCLUSION: Persistent racial disparities among early adopters may represent especially-entrenched disparities in access to and knowledge of genomic technologies in clinical settings.

Factors Associated With Receipt of Molecular Testing and its Impact on Time to Initial Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations for molecular testing irrespective of patient characteristics, differences exist in receipt of molecular testing for oncogenic drivers amongst metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients. Exploration into these differences and their effects on treatment is needed to identify opportunities for improvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with mNSCLC between 2011 and 2018 using PCORnet's Rapid Cycle Research Project dataset (n = 3600). Log-binomial, Cox proportional hazards (PH), and time-varying Cox regression models were used to ascertain whether molecular testing was received, and time from diagnosis to molecular testing and/or initial systemic treatment in the context of patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, and multiple comorbidities status. RESULTS: The majority of patients in this cohort were ≤ 65 years of age (median [25th, 75th]: 64 [57, 71]), male (54.3%), non-Hispanic white individuals (81.6%), with > 2 comorbidities in addition to mNSCLC (54.1%). About half the cohort received molecular testing (49.9%). Patients who received molecular testing had a 59% higher probability of initial systemic treatment than patients who were yet to receive testing. Multiple comorbidity status was positively associated with receipt of molecular testing (RR, 1.27; 95% CI 1.08, 1.49). CONCLUSION: Receipt of molecular testing in academic centers was associated with earlier initiation of systemic treatment. This finding underscores the need to increase molecular testing rates amongst mNSCLC patients during a clinically relevant period. Further studies to validate these findings in community centers are warranted.

Scoping Review to Inform the Future Development of a Measure for Team-Based Care in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Team-based care is the delivery of health services to an individual by at least two health care providers working collaboratively to achieve optimal care. Participants on the National Cancer Institute and the ASCO Teams in the Cancer Care Delivery Project have defined 13 key principles to serve as the foundation for a successful team; however, it is unclear whether there exist measures of these key principles. METHODS: A scoping literature search was conducted for each key principle on PubMed and Embase to identify existing measures for key principles. Articles of interest were exported to a citation manager, Sciwheel, cataloged by the key principle. Existing measures were extracted via a two-stage screening process, with an abstract review followed by a full-text review. RESULTS: Fifteen unique measures were identified, with items extrapolated for 12 of the 13 key principles. Measures were not exclusive and could represent more than one key principle. The number of measures varied per principle from zero to five, with Team Composition and Diversity yielding no existing measure. CONCLUSION: The long-term goal is to compile and edit these measures, to create a comprehensive measure to be used in various team-based oncology care settings, and to address areas for improvement, ultimately optimizing patient care.

Processes and perceptions of chemotherapy supply chain in Ethiopia: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: The impact and downstream effects of the chemotherapy supply chain in Ethiopia are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to identify perceived gaps in supply chain and characterize their impact on patient care. METHODS: A concurrent mixed-method study was conducted at a large academic cancer center in Ethiopia. In-depth interviews (IDIs) and surveys were completed in collaboration with external stakeholders with knowledge about chemotherapy supply chain in Ethiopia. Thematic coding was used for qualitative analysis of IDI and descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative survey data. RESULTS: Six stakeholders participated in the IDIs and seven completed surveys. IDIs revealed that most chemotherapeutic agents are purchased by the Ethiopian Pharmaceutical Supply Agency (EPSA) and are distributed to cancer treatment centers. A free-market purchasing option also exists, but for chemotherapy obtained outside of government-subsidized channels, the potential for substandard or falsified chemotherapy was a concern. Participants expressed confidence that the correct treatment was administered to patients, but viewpoints on reliability and consistency of medication supply were variable. Quantitative data from the survey showed that participants were not confident that medications are prepared safely and correctly. Improper storage and manipulation of high-risk medications remain a significant risk to staff. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight from a healthcare staff perspective on how gaps in the chemotherapy supply chain process impact patient care in a low-income country. Inventory management, disruptions in supply chain, and product integrity were perceived as the largest gaps in the current chemotherapy supply chain structure.

Development and initial testing of a multi-stakeholder intervention for Lynch syndrome cascade screening: an intervention mapping approach.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is an underdiagnosed hereditary condition carrying an increased lifetime risk for colorectal and endometrial cancer and affecting nearly 1 million people in the United States. Cascade screening, systematic screening through family members of affected patients, could improve identification of Lynch syndrome, but this strategy is underused due to multi-level barriers including low knowledge about Lynch syndrome, low access to genetics services, and challenging family dynamics. METHODS: We used intervention mapping, a 6-step methodology to create stakeholder-driven interventions that meet the needs of a target population, to develop an intervention to improve cascade screening for Lynch syndrome. The intervention development process was guided by input from key stakeholders in Lynch syndrome care and patients. We conducted usability testing on the intervention with Lynch syndrome patients using qualitative semi-structured interviewing and rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: We developed a workbook intervention named Let's Talk that addresses gaps in knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and other perceived barriers to cascade screening for Lynch syndrome. Let's Talk contained educational content, goal setting activities, communication planning prompts and supplemental resources for patients to plan family communication. Evidence-based methods used in the workbook included information chunking, guided practice, goal setting and gain-framing. We conducted usability testing focused on the complexity and relative advantage of the intervention through 45-min virtual interviews with 10 adult patients with Lynch syndrome recruited from a national advocacy organization in the United States. Usability testing results suggested the intervention was acceptable in terms of complexity and relative advantage to other available resources, but additional information for communication with young or distant family members and a web-based platform could enhance the intervention's usability. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention mapping provided a framework for intervention development that addressed the unique needs of Lynch syndrome patients in overcoming barriers to cascade screening. Future work is needed to transform Let's Talk into a web-based tool and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in clinical practice with patients and genetic counselors. Intervention mapping can be useful to researchers as an evidence-based technique to develop stakeholder-centered interventions for addressing the needs of other unique populations.

Concurrent prescribing of opioids with other sedating medications after cancer diagnosis: a population-level analysis.

PURPOSE: Cancer is a major reason for concurrent prescription of opioids with other sedating medications-particularly benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids-yet population-based assessments of the extent and predictors of concurrent prescribing among clinically and demographically diverse patients with cancer are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with non-metastatic cancer using North Carolina cancer registry data linked with Medicare and private insurance claims (2013-2016). We used modified Poisson regression to assess associations of patient characteristic with adjusted relative risk (aRR) of new concurrent prescribing of opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids after diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 15% of patients were concurrently prescribed opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids. Characteristics independently associated with an increased risk of concurrent prescribing included cancer type (e.g., aRR cervical vs. colorectal cancer: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12-2.14); prior use of opioids (aRR: 2.43, 95% CI:2.21-2.67), benzodiazepines (aRR: 4.08, 95% CI: 3.72-4.48), or gabapentinoids (3.82, 95% CI: 3.31-4.39), and premorbid mental health conditions, including substance use disorder (aRR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05-1.54). Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to experience concurrent prescribing (aRR, Black vs. White: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83; aRR, Hispanic vs. White: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 7 patients with cancer was concurrently prescribed opioids with other sedating medications. Associations between patient characteristics and risk of concurrent prescribing highlight predictors of concurrent prescribing and suggest a rationale for systematic assessment of substance use history at diagnosis. Future research could explore inequitable pain and symptom management and investigate risk of adverse medication-related events.

Breast cancer incidence among women with a family history of breast cancer by relative's age at diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer are often advised to begin screening when they are 10 years younger than the age at which their relative was diagnosed. Evidence is lacking to determine how much earlier they should begin. METHODS: Using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data on screening mammograms from 1996 to 2016, the authors constructed a cohort of 306,147 women 30-59 years of age with information on first-degree family history of breast cancer and relative's age at diagnosis. The authors compared cumulative 5-year breast cancer incidence among women with and without a first-degree family history of breast by relative's age at diagnosis and by screening age. RESULTS: Among 306,147 women included in the study, approximately 11% reported a first-degree family history of breast cancer with 3885 breast cancer cases identified. Women reporting a relative diagnosed between 40 and 49 years and undergoing screening between ages 30 and 39 or 40 and 49 had similar 5-year cumulative incidences of breast cancer (respectively, 18.6/1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1, 25.7; 18.4/1000; 95% CI, 13.7, 23.5) as women without a family history undergoing screening between 50-59 years of age (18.0/1000; 95% CI, 17.0, 19.1). For relative's diagnosis age from 35 to 45 years of age, initiating screening 5-8 years before diagnosis age resulted in a 5-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer of 15.2/1000, that of an average 50-year-old woman. CONCLUSION: Women with a relative diagnosed at or before age 45 may wish to consider, in consultation with their provider, initiating screening 5-8 years earlier than their relative's diagnosis age.

Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk.

An emerging role for DNA sequencing is to identify people at risk for an inherited cancer syndrome in order to prevent or ameliorate the manifestation of symptoms. Two cancer syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome meet the "Tier 1" evidence threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine testing of patients with a personal or family history of cancer. Advancements in genomic medicine have accelerated public health pilot programs for these highly medically actionable conditions. In this brief report, we provide descriptive statistics from a survey of 746 US respondents from a Qualtrics panel about the public's awareness of genetic testing, interest in learning about their cancer risk, and likelihood of participating in a population genetic screening (PGS) test. Approximately of half the respondents were aware of genetic testing for inherited cancer risk (n = 377/745, 50.6%) and would choose to learn about their cancer risk (n-309/635, 48.7%). Characteristics of those interested in learning about their cancer risk differed by educational attainment, age, income, insurance status, having a primary care doctor, being aware of genetic testing, and likelihood of sharing information with family (p < 0.05). A sizeable majority of the respondents who were interested in about learning their cancer risk also said that they were likely to participate in a PGS test that involved a clinical appointment and blood draw, but no out-of-pocket cost (n = 255/309, 82.5%). Reasons for not wanting to participate included not finding test results interesting or important, concerns about costs, and feeling afraid to know the results. Overall, our results suggest that engaging and educating the general population about the benefits of learning about an inherited cancer predisposition may be an important strategy to address recruitment barriers to PGS.

Precision Public Health Initiatives in Cancer: Proceedings from the Transdisciplinary Conference for Future Leaders in Precision Public Health.

BACKGROUND: Precision public health is an emergent field that requires transdisciplinary collaborations and leverages innovative approaches to improve population health. These opportunities have inspired a new generation of precision public health researchers. Despite burgeoning interest in precision public health, there are limited opportunities for researchers to convene and continue the momentum of this field. METHODS: The Transdisciplinary Conference for Future Leaders in Precision Public Health was the among the first events to bring together international researchers and practitioners to learn, network, and agenda set for the future of the field. The conference took place virtually on October 14 and 15, 2021. RESULTS: The conference spanned two days and featured a keynote address, speakers from public health disciplines who are international leaders in precision-based research, networking opportunities, a poster session, and research agenda setting activities. CONCLUSION: The conference was a critical first step to creating a shared international conversation about precision public health, especially among early-stage investigators. This allowed attendees to continue building their individual skills and international collaborations to support the growth of the field of precision public health.

Using a Participatory Approach to Develop Research Priorities for Future Leaders in Cancer-Related Precision Public Health.

Precision public health is an emerging discipline combining principles and frameworks of precision health with the goal of improving population health. The development of research priorities drawing on the strengths of precision and public health is critical to facilitate the growth of the discipline to improve health outcomes. We held an interactive workshop during a virtual conference bringing together early-career researchers across public health disciplines to identify research priorities in precision public health. The workshop participants discussed and voted to identify three priority areas for future research and capacity building including 1) enhancing equity and access to precision public health research and resources, 2) improving tools and metrics for evaluation and 3) applying principles of implementation science to support sustainable practices. Participants also developed future objectives for achieving each priority. Future efforts by working groups will continue the process of identifying, revising, and advancing critical research priorities to grow the impact of precision public health.

Multifactorial causal beliefs and colorectal cancer screening: A structural equation modeling investigation.

We tested a conceptual model that describes the relationship between individuals' understanding of the multifactorial nature of cancer and their self-reported colorectal cancer screening. We collected cross-sectional survey data from 205 men and women age 50-75. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The proposed model had reasonable fit (RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.65). Multifactorial causal beliefs were associated with cancer risk perceptions (ß = 0.16, p = 0.019) and more optimistic cancer cognitions (ß = 0.17, p = 0.013). However, these constructs were not associated with colorectal cancer screening (p's > 0.05). Further testing could reveal whether this model can be applied to other cancer-related health behaviors including lifestyle changes and genetic testing.

Patient Perspectives on the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.

Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.

Uptake of Genetic Testing Among Patients with Cancer At Risk for Lynch Syndrome in the National Health Interview Survey.

Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cancer syndrome that increases the risk of developing colorectal and endometrial cancer. Universal screening guidelines were first recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009 and are updated annually by multiple societies. Therefore, one would expect genetic testing rates to increase over time. But testing remains underutilized among those with colorectal or endometrial cancer, even though early detection can improve prognosis and survival rates. In this study, we aimed to understand differences in genetic testing uptake among those with colorectal cancer or endometrial cancer from 2005, 2010, 2015, using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We examined genetic testing uptake across cancer-type, age (≤50 or ≥51), sex, race, insurance, and education using a χ2 statistical analysis. Despite an upward genetic testing trend in 2010, we found no significant differences in genetic testing uptake over time. In 2010, non-White individuals experienced the highest increase from 2005 in comparison with White individuals. However, genetic testing rates declined for both groups by 2015. Our findings show that genetic testing for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer did not increase over a 10-year period in spite of guidelines that recommend testing.Prevention Relevance: Genetic testing uptake for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer has not increased over a 10-year period in spite of universal screening guidelines. More genetic testing education is needed at the provider and patient level to improve screening strategies for cancer patients who are most at risk for Lynch syndrome.

Oncologist-Reported Reasons for Not Ordering Multimarker Tumor Panels: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey.

This study examines oncologist-reported reasons for not using multimarker tumor panel testing and the association between these reasons and oncologist-level, facility-level, and patient-mix characteristics. METHODS: We used data collected from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,281) of medical oncologists participating in the National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. RESULTS: In addition to testing not being seen as relevant (87%) and no evidence of test utility (77%), the most frequently reported reasons for not ordering a multimarker tumor panel test was difficulty in obtaining sufficient tissue (57%) and using individual gene tests (72%). These reasons were more likely to be reported by oncologists practicing in rural clinics and less likely to be reported by oncologists with an academic affiliation or with access to genetic services such as on-site genetic counselors and internal genetic testing policies. CONCLUSION: Modifiable, organizational factors were associated with ordering multimarker tumor panels. Receipt of genomics training and organizational policies related to the use of genomics were associated with lower reporting of barriers to ordering multimarker tumor panels, pointing to potential targets for future studies aimed at increasing appropriate multimarker tumor panel testing in cancer treatment management.

Predictors of Chronic Opioid Use: A Population-Level Analysis of North Carolina Cancer Survivors Using Multi-Payer Claims.

BACKGROUND: No population-based studies have examined chronic opioid use among cancer survivors who are diverse with respect to diagnosis, age group, and insurance status. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using North Carolina cancer registry data linked with claims from public and private insurance (2006-2016). We included adults with nonmetastatic cancer who had no prior chronic opioid use (n = 38 366). We used modified Poisson regression to assess the adjusted relative risk of chronic opioid use in survivorship (>90-day continuous supply of opioids in the 13-24 months following diagnosis) associated with patient characteristics. RESULTS: Only 3.0% of cancer survivors in our cohort used opioids chronically in survivorship. Predictors included younger age (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 50-59 vs 60-69 = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.43), baseline depression (aRR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.41) or substance use (aRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.78) and Medicaid (aRR vs private = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.56 to 2.40). Survivors who used opioids intermittently (vs not at all) before diagnosis were twice as likely to use opioids chronically in survivorship (aRR = 2.62, 95% CI = 2.28 to 3.02). Those who used opioids chronically (vs intermittently or not at all) during active treatment had a nearly 17-fold increased likelihood of chronic use in survivorship (aRR = 16.65, 95% CI = 14.30 to 19.40). CONCLUSIONS: Younger and low-income survivors, those with baseline depression or substance use, and those who require chronic opioid therapy during treatment are at increased risk for chronic opioid use in survivorship. Our findings point to opportunities to improve assessment of psychosocial histories and to engage patients in shared decision-making around long-term pain management, when chronic opioid therapy is required during treatment.

Involving patients and their families in deciding to use next generation sequencing: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: Next generation sequencing (NGS) may aid in tumor classification and treatment. Barriers to shared decision-making may influence use of NGS. We examined, from oncologists' perspectives, whether barriers to involving patients/families in decision-making were associated with NGS use. METHODS: Using data from the first national survey of medical oncologists' perspectives on precision medicine (N = 1281), we approached our analyses in two phases. Bivariate analyses initially evaluated associations between barriers to involving patients/families in deciding to use NGS and provider- and organizational-level characteristics. Modified Poisson regressions then examined associations between patient/family barriers and NGS use. RESULTS: Approximately 59 % of oncologists reported at least one barrier to involving patients/families in decision-making regarding NGS use. Those reporting patient/family barriers tended to have fewer genomic resources at their practices, to be in rural or suburban areas, and to have a higher proportion of Medicaid patients. However, these barriers were not associated with NGS use. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists encounter barriers to involving patients/families in NGS testing decisions. Organizational barriers may also potentially play a role in testing decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To foster patient-centered care, strategies to support patient involvement in genomic testing decisions are needed, particularly among practices in low-resource settings.