Uptake of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer practice: views of academic and community-based oncologists.

PURPOSE: Advances in personalized medicine have produced novel tests and treatment options for women with breast cancer. Relatively little is known about the process by which such tests are adopted into oncology practice. The objectives of the present study were to understand the experiences of medical oncologists with multigene expression profile (gep) tests, including their adoption into practice in early-stage breast cancer, and the perceptions of the oncologists about the influence of test results on treatment decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study involving interviews with medical oncologists from academic and community cancer centres or hospitals in 8 communities in Ontario. A 21-gene breast cancer assay was used as the example of gep testing. Qualitative analytic techniques were used to identify the main themes. RESULTS: Of 28 oncologists who were approached, 21 (75%) participated in the study [median age: 43 years; 12 women (57%)]. Awareness and knowledge of gep testing were derived from several sources: international scientific meetings, participation in clinical studies, discussions with respected colleagues, and manufacturer-sponsored meetings. Oncologists observed that incorporating gep testing into their clinical practice resulted in several changes, including longer consultation times, second visits, and taking steps to minimize treatment delays. Oncologists expressed divergent opinions about the strength of evidence and added value of gep testing in guiding treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of gep testing into clinical practice in early-stage breast cancer required oncologists to make changes to their usual routines. The opinions of oncologists about the quality of evidence underpinning the test affected how much weight they gave to test results in treatment decision-making.

Cancer patient experience with navigation service in an urban hospital setting: a qualitative study.

Cancer patient navigators are increasingly present on the oncology health care team. The positive impact of navigation on cancer care is recognised, yet a clear understanding of what the patient navigator does and how he/she executes the role continues to emerge. This study aimed to understand cancer patients' perceptions of, and experiences with patient navigation, exploring how navigation may enhance the patient experience in an urban hospital setting where patients with varying needs are treated. A qualitative study using a constructionist approach was conducted. Fifteen colorectal cancer patients participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Data were analyzed inductively and iteratively. Findings provide insight into two central aspects of cancer navigation: navigation as patient-centred coordination and explanation of clinical care, and navigation as individualised, holistic support. Within these themes, the key benefits of navigation from the patients' perspective were demystifying the system; ensuring comprehension, managing expectations; and, delivering patient-centred care. The navigator provided individualised and extended family support; a holistic approach; and, addressed emotional and psychological needs. These findings provide a means to operationalise and validate an emerging role description and competency framework for the cancer navigator who must identify and adapt to patients' varying needs throughout the cancer care continuum.

Is there a role for physician involvement in introducing research to surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit? (The Approach trial: a pilot mixed methods study).

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial comparing two strategies [physician (MD) vs. non-physician (non-MD)] for approaching substitute decision makers (SDMs) for research and to evaluate SDMs' experiences in being approached for consent. METHODS: A pilot mixed methods study of first encounters with SDMs. RESULTS: Of 137 SDMs (162 eligibility events), 67 and 70 were randomized to MD and non-MD introductions, respectively. Eighty SDMs (98 events) provided consent and 21 SDMs (24 events) declined consent for studies, including 2 SDMs who provided and declined consent. We identified few missed introductions [4/52 (7.7 %)] and protocol violations [6/117 (5.1 %)], high comfort, satisfaction and acceptance scores and similar consent rates in both arms. SDMs provided consent significantly more often when a patient update was provided in the MD arm. Most SDMs (85.7 %) felt that physician involvement was inconsequential and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care; however, SDM experiences were closely related to their recall of being approached and recall was poor. SDMs highlighted 7 themes of importance to them in research surrogate decision-making. CONCLUSION: SDMs prioritized the personal attributes of the person approaching them over professional designation and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care. A mixed methods design evaluated intervention fidelity and provided the rationale for not proceeding to a larger trial, despite achieving all feasibility metrics in the pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01232621.