Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct;18(10):1011-9.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.207. Epub 2016 Feb 11.

Oncologists' and Cancer Patients' Views on Whole-Exome Sequencing and Incidental Findings: Results From the CanSeq Study

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Oncologists' and Cancer Patients' Views on Whole-Exome Sequencing and Incidental Findings: Results From the CanSeq Study

Stacy W Gray et al. Genet Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Purpose: Although targeted sequencing improves outcomes for many cancer patients, it remains uncertain how somatic and germ-line whole-exome sequencing (WES) will integrate into care.

Methods: We conducted surveys and interviews within a study of WES integration at an academic center to determine oncologists' attitudes about WES and to identify lung and colorectal cancer patients' preferences for learning WES findings.

Results: One-hundred sixty-seven patients (85% white, 58% female, mean age 60) and 27 oncologists (22% female) participated. Although oncologists had extensive experience ordering somatic tests (median 100/year), they had little experience ordering germ-line tests. Oncologists intended to disclose most WES results to patients but anticipated numerous challenges in using WES. Patients had moderately low levels of genetic knowledge (mean 4 correct out of 7). Most patients chose to learn results that could help select a clinical trial, pharmacogenetic and positive prognostic results, and results suggesting inherited predisposition to cancer and treatable noncancer conditions (all ≥95%). Fewer chose to receive negative prognostic results (84%) and results suggesting predisposition to untreatable noncancer conditions (85%).

Conclusion: The majority of patients want most cancer-related and incidental WES results. Patients' low levels of genetic knowledge and oncologists' inexperience with large-scale sequencing present challenges to implementing paired WES in practice.Genet Med 18 10, 1011-1019.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02127359.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Oncologists' attitudes regarding return of genomic test results (n=27, %). Return based on clinical utility (Panel A), clinical validity (Panel B), and all results (Panel C).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Patients' preferences for the return of somatic and germline WES results

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 33 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15(7):565–574. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.73. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Robson ME, Bradbury AR, Arun B, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement Update: Genetic and Genomic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Aug; doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0996. JCO.2015.63.0996. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(21):1609–1615. - PubMed
    1. Domchek SM. Association of Risk-Reducing Surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Cancer Risk and Mortality. JAMA. 2010;304(9):967. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1237. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Machens A, Niccoli-Sire P, Hoegel J, et al. Early malignant progression of hereditary medullary thyroid cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(16):1517–1525. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012915. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

Feedback