Research Article

Pharmacogenomic testing in oncology: a health system's approach to identify oncology provider perspectives

MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA

Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Sadaf Kazi

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7189-6989

MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA

National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC 20008, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Marc D Schwartz

Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Nadia Ashai

MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA

Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Sandra M Swain

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1320-3830

MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA

Department of Medicine, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA

Search for more papers by this author

D Max Smith

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: max.smith@medstar.net

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3667-2936

MedStar Health, Columbia, MD 21044, USA

Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:9 Nov 2023https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2023-0164

View article

Abstract

Aim: Identify oncology healthcare providers' attitudes toward barriers to and use cases for pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing and implications for prescribing anticancer and supportive care medications. Materials & methods: A questionnaire was designed and disseminated to 71 practicing oncology providers across the MedStar Health System. Results: 25 of 70 (36%) eligible oncology providers were included. 88% were aware of PGx testing and 72% believed PGx can improve care. Of providers who had ordered a medication with PGx implications in the past month, interest in PGx for anticancer (90–100%) and supportive care medications (>75%) was high. Providers with previous PGx education were more likely to have ordered a test (odds ratio: 7.9; 95% CI: 1.1–56; p = 0.0394). Conclusion: Oncology provider prescribing practices and interest in PGx suggest opportunities for implementation.

Keywords:

References

1. Pharmacogenomics. National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA (2022).
Google Scholar
2. Relling MV, Klein TE, Gammal RS, Whirl-Carrillo M, Hoffman JM, Caudle KE. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium: 10 years later. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 107(1), 171–175 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Guidelines. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), Memphis, TN, USA. (2023).
Google Scholar
4. Patel JN. Opportunities for pharmacogenomics-guided supportive care in cancer. Support. Care Cancer 29(2), 555–557 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Patel JN, Wiebe LA, Dunnenberger HM, McLeod HL. Value of supportive care pharmacogenomics in oncology practice. Oncologist 23(8), 956–964 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Shugg T, Ly RC, Rowe EJ et al. Clinical opportunities for germline pharmacogenetics and management of drug–drug interactions in patients with advanced solid cancers. JCO Precis. Oncol. 6, e2100312 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Koo K, Pasternak AL, Henry NL, Sahai V, Hertz DL. Survey of US medical oncologists' practices and beliefs regarding DPYD testing before fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. JCO Oncol. Pract. 18(6), e958–e965 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Dressler LG, Deal AM, Patel J, Markey J, Riper MV, McLeod HL. Cancer pharmacogenomics, adoption by oncologists and patient benefit. Per. Med. 11(2), 143–153 (2014).
CASGoogle Scholar
9. Mowbray C, Turner J, Gai J, Jacobs S. Comfort with pharmacogenetic testing amongst pediatric oncology providers and their patients. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. Nurs. 39(3), 168–177 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Przybylski DJ, Dow-Hillgartner EN, Reed MP, Fallon MJ. Current state assessment survey of challenges of pharmacogenomics within oncology pharmacy practice. J. Oncol. Pharm. Pract. 26(6), 1374–1381 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Rahawi S, Naik H, Blake KV et al. Knowledge and attitudes on pharmacogenetics among pediatricians. J. Hum. Genet. 65(5), 437–444 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Smith DM, Namvar T, Brown RP et al. Assessment of primary care practitioners' attitudes and interest in pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacogenomics 21(15), 1085–1094 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
13. Smith DM et al. Pharmacogenomics applied to chronic pain treatment in primary care (PGx-ACT). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04685304
Google Scholar
14. Empey PE, Pratt VM, Hoffman JM, Caudle KE, Klein TE. Expanding evidence leads to new pharmacogenomics payer coverage. Genet. Med. 23(5), 830–832 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Freedman AN, Klabunde CN, Wiant K et al. Use of next-generation sequencing tests to guide cancer treatment: results from a nationally representative survey of oncologists in the United States. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2, PO.18.00169 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Prioritization of Genes/Drugs. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), Memphis, TN, USA. (2023).
Google Scholar
17. Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations. US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA. (2023).
Google Scholar
18. Massie MJ. Prevalence of depression in patients with cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. (32), 57–71 (2004).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Warr DG. Chemotherapy-and cancer-related nausea and vomiting. Curr. Oncol. 15(Suppl. 1), S4–S9 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Antiemesis V 2.2023 Ed. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA (2023).
Google Scholar
21. Baraki AG, Tessema GM, Demeke EA. High burden of depression among cancer patients on chemotherapy in University of Gondar comprehensive hospital and Felege Hiwot referral hospital, northwest Ethiopia. PLOS ONE 15(8), e0237837 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Amstutz U, Henricks LM, Offer SM et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotype and fluoropyrimidine dosing: 2017 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103(2), 210–216 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. EMA Recommendations on DPD Testing Prior to Treatment with Fluorouracil, Capecitabine, Tegafur and Flucytosine. European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2020).
Google Scholar
24. Loriot MA, Ciccolini J, Thomas F et al. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency screening and securing of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapies: update and recommendations of the French GPCO-Unicancer and RNPGx networks. Bull. Cancer 105(4), 397–407 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Hertz DL, Smith DM, Scott SA, Patel JN, Hicks JK. Response to the FDA decision regarding DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 114(4), 768–779 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Colon Cancer. V 2.2023 Ed. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA (2023).
Google Scholar
27. Baker SD, Bates SE, Brooks GA et al. DPYD testing: time to put patient safety first. J. Clin. Oncol. 41(15), 2701–2705 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Xeloda^®, package insert. Genentech, Inc., CA, USA
Google Scholar
29. Visvanathan K, Chlebowski RT, Hurley P et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction. J. Oncol. Pract. 5(4), 196–199 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Visvanathan K, Fabian CJ, Bantug E et al. Use of endocrine therapy for breast cancer risk reduction: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(33), 3152–3165 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Goetz MP, Sangkuhl K, Guchelaar HJ et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for CYP2D6 and tamoxifen therapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103(5), 770–777 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Breast Cancer. V 4.2023 Ed. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA (2023).
Google Scholar
33. Rae JM, Drury S, Hayes DF et al. CYP2D6 and UGT2B7 genotype and risk of recurrence in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104(6), 452–460 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Regan MM, Leyland-Jones B, Bouzyk M et al. CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen response in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: the Breast International Group 1-98 trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104(6), 441–451 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Sanchez-Spitman A, Dezentje V, Swen J et al. Tamoxifen pharmacogenetics and metabolism: results from the prospective CYPTAM study. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(8), 636–646 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Swarm RA, Youngwerth JM, Anghelescu DL et al. Adult cancer pain, version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 17(8), 977–1007 (2023).
Google Scholar
37. Crews KR, Monte AA, Huddart R et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for CYP2D6, OPRM1, and COMT genotype and select opioid therapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 110(4), 888–896 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Behr MP, Gammal RS, Matthews ML, Wang VC. Healthcare professionals' knowledge, confidence and perceptions of pharmacogenomics in primary care and pain management. Pharmacogenomics doi: 10.2217/pgs-2023-0028 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
39. Glewis S, Lingaratnam S, Krishnasamy M et al. Pharmacogenetics testing (DPYD and UGT1A1) for fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan in routine clinical care: perspectives of medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists. J. Oncol. Pharm. Pract. doi: 10.1177/10781552231167554 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Morris SA, Moore DC, Musselwhite LW et al. Addressing barriers to increased adoption of DPYD genotyping at a large multisite cancer center. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxad117 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Seligson ND, Kolesar JM, Alam B et al. Integrating pharmacogenomic testing into paired germline and somatic genomic testing in patients with cancer. Pharmacogenomics doi: 10.2217/pgs-2023-0125 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar

Vol. 24, No. 16

Metrics

Downloaded 105 times

History

Received 23 August 2023

Accepted 21 September 2023

Published online 9 November 2023

Published in print November 2023

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/pgs-2023-0164

Author contributions

M Bhatt, BN Peshkin, S Kazi, SM Swain and DM Smith were responsible for study conception and design; M Bhatt and DM Smith were responsible for acquisition of data; M Bhatt and DM Smith were responsible for data analysis; and all authors were responsible for drafting and revision of the manuscript.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending or royalties.

Competing interests disclosure

DM Smith and SM Swain report grants (to institution) from Kailos Genetics, Inc. The authors have no other competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Writing disclosure

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

The study was approved with a waiver of informed consent by the institutional review board at MSH.

PDF download