Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
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.
Brown, Kerri; Ponton, Marisel; Davidson, Elenita; Arun, Banu; Volk, Robert J; Shete, Sanjay; Peterson, Susan K; Makhnoon, Sukh.
Afiliación
  • Brown K; Peter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
  • Ponton M; Peter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
  • Davidson E; Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Arun B; Clinical Cancer Genetics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
  • Volk RJ; Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Shete S; Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Peterson SK; Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Makhnoon S; Peter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Cancer ; 2024 Jun 06.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38843377
ABSTRACT

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.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article