Meaningful patient representation informing Canada's cancer drug funding decisions: views of patient representatives on the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.

In this interview with the patient representatives on the Expert Review Committee (perc) of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr), those representatives offer their views about how to be a valuable contributing member of Canada's national cancer drug funding recommendation committee. The article seeks to inform readers, and especially clinicians, about pcodr from the perspective of the patient representatives.

Access to personalized medicine: factors influencing the use and value of gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment.

UNLABELLED: Genomic information is increasingly being used to personalize health care. One example is gene expression profiling (gep) tests, which estimate recurrence risk to inform chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer. Recently, gep tests were publicly funded in Ontario. We explored the perceived utility of gep tests, focusing on the factors influencing their use and value in treatment decision-making by patients and oncologists. METHODS: We conducted interviews with oncologists (n = 14) and interviews and a focus group with early-stage breast cancer patients (n = 28) who underwent gep testing. Both groups were recruited through oncology clinics in Ontario. Data were analyzed using the content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: Narratives from patients and oncologists provided insights into various factors facilitating and restricting access to gep. First, oncologists are positioned as gatekeepers of gep, providing access in medically appropriate cases. However, varying perceptions of appropriateness led to perceived inequities in access and negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. Second, media attention facilitated patient awareness of gep, but also complicated gatekeeping. Third, the dedicated administration attached to gep was burdensome and led to long waits for results and also to increased patient anxiety and delayed treatment. Collectively, because of barriers to access, those factors inadvertently heightened the perceived value of gep for patients relative to other prognostic indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Our study delineates the factors facilitating and restricting access to gep, and highlights the roles of media and organization of services in the perceived value and utilization of gep. The results identify a need for administrative changes and practice guidelines to support streamlined and standardized use of gep tests.

Patients' perceptions of gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Determining the likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer patients depends on estimating baseline recurrence risk. Gene expression profile (gep) testing of tumours informs risk prediction, but evidence of its clinical utility is limited. We explored patient perceptions of gep testing and the impact of those perceptions on chemotherapy decisions. METHODS: We conducted one focus group (n = 4) and individual interviews (n = 24) with patients who used gep testing, recruited through clinics at two hospitals in Ontario. Data were analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: Patients' understanding of gep testing was variable, and misapprehensions were common. Patients valued the test because it provided them with certainty amidst confusion, with options and a sense of empowerment, and with personalized, authoritative information. They commonly believed that the test was better and fundamentally different from other clinical tests, attributing to it unique power and truth-value. This kind of "magical thinking" was derived from an amplified perception of the test's validity and patients' need for reassurance about their treatment choices. Despite misperceptions or magical thinking, gep was widely considered to be the deciding factor in treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tend to overestimate the truth-value of gep testing based on misperceptions of its validity. Our results identify a need to better support patient understanding of the test and its limitations. Findings illustrate the deep emotional investment patients make in gep test results and the impact of that investment on their treatment decisions.