Physician knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic biomarker testing for the management of patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: an international physician survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To explore physician-reported knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic testing for advanced ovarian cancer management. Gynecology/oncology specialists (n = 390) in the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia completed an online survey spanning March 2021 to April 2022. Physician-reported breast cancer gene mutation (BRCAm) testing rates increased over the 2 years before the survey; most patients underwent testing in the preceding 6 months. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) genomic instability testing rates and physicians’ confidence interpreting results remained relatively low. Genetic testing was driven by the associated treatment implications of the findings. Poor performance status, inadequate tissue, and patients’ willingness to undergo testing were reported barriers to testing. Findings indicate that there is a need to improve both access to and information about HRD testing. Why did we perform this research? Testing for breast cancer gene mutations (BRCAm) is strongly recommended to guide treatment decisions for patients with ovarian cancer (OC), with screening for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) genomic instability (when cells cannot accurately repair breaks in DNA strands) also recommended. However, not all eligible women are tested, indicating that a greater understanding of physicians’ testing practices is needed. What did we do? Physicians (n = 390) in the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia completed an online survey that evaluated their knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic testing for advanced OC management. What were the results? Across all countries, physicians reported increasing BRCAm testing rates over the 2 years before the survey, with most patients with advanced OC now receiving these tests. HRD testing rates were relatively low, and few physicians reported complete confidence in interpreting these test results. Physicians most commonly reported that genetic testing was conducted because the results could guide treatment decisions. The main reasons for not conducting tests were patients being too unwell, tissue samples being inadequate, or patients being unwilling to undergo testing. Across countries, most physicians agreed genetic counseling should be offered to patients with OC; however, in some countries, there was insufficient access to these services. What are the implications? Our findings indicate that physicians’ understanding of the wider implications of genetic testing, including HRD testing, and patients’ access to genetic counseling may require improvement to ensure patients with advanced OC receive optimal care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».