Physician Communication and Patient Understanding of Molecular Testing Terminology.

BACKGROUND: The use of molecular testing in oncology is rapidly expanding. The aim of this study was to determine how oncologists describe molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology being used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty conversations between oncologists and patients about molecular testing were observed, and the used technical terms were noted by the researcher. Patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of the noted technical terms. A patient understanding score was calculated for each participant. Comparisons of the terms were conducted using χ2 tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA when appropriate. RESULTS: Sixty-one unique technical terms were used by oncologists, to describe seven topics. "Mutation" was a challenging term for patients to understand with 48.8% (21/43 mentions) of participants correctly defining the term. "Genetic testing" and "Gene" were understood a little more than half the time (53.3%; 8/15 and 56.4%; 22/39 respectively). "DNA" was well understood (80%; 12/15). There was no correlation between the terms being defined by the oncologist in the conversation, and the likelihood of the patient providing a correct definition. White participants were significantly more likely to understand both "mutation" and "genetic testing" than non-White participants. Forty-two percent (n = 25) of participants had an understanding score below 50%, and a higher family income was significantly correlated with a higher score. CONCLUSION: Our results show that oncologists use variable terminology to describe molecular testing, which is often not understood. Because oncologists defining the terms did not correlate with understanding, it is imperative to develop new, improved methods to explain molecular testing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of molecular testing is expanding in oncology, yet little is known about how effectively clinicians are communicating information about molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology used. The results of this study indicate that patients do not understand some of the terminology used by their clinicians and that clinicians tend to use highly variable terminology to describe molecular testing. These results highlight the need to develop and implement effective methods to explain molecular testing terminology to patients to ensure that patients have the tools to make autonomous and informed decisions about their treatment.

Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing to inform treatment and clinical trial choices is now the standard of care for several types of cancer. However, no established guidelines exist for the type of information physicians should cover during discussions with the patient about the test or its results. The objectives of this study were to identify physician and patient preferences regarding information and who should communicate this information and how to inform guidelines for these conversations. METHODS: Physicians and patients who participated in discussions regarding molecular testing were asked to choose 8 topics of most relevance out of a list of 18. The McNemar test was used to determine their top preferences. Patients were asked to identify what information they wanted to receive and who should inform them, and physicians were asked to identify the best aid to communication. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients identified 12 preferred topics: the benefits of testing (88%), how testing determines treatment (88%), implications for family (71%), whether a test indicates the seriousness of disease (68%), purpose of the test (64%), incidental findings (56%), explanation of cancer genetics (53%), how the test is done (46%), limitations (44%), explanation of biomarker (42%), risks (42%), and uninformative results (38%). Physicians added cost (59%). Patients preferred receiving information about molecular testing from their nurse or physician (85%), and physicians preferred using a pamphlet (67%) to augment communication. CONCLUSIONS: The topics identified as important to discuss can inform future guidelines and can contribute to effective communication regarding molecular testing. Cancer 2017;123:1610-1616. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Using Metaphors to Explain Molecular Testing to Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing to identify targetable molecular alterations is routine practice for several types of cancer. Explaining the underlying molecular concepts can be difficult, and metaphors historically have been used in medicine to provide a common language between physicians and patients. Although previous studies have highlighted the use and effectiveness of metaphors to help explain germline genetic concepts to the general public, this study is the first to describe the use of metaphors to explain molecular testing to cancer patients in the clinical setting. METHODS: Oncologist-patient conversations about molecular testing were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. If a metaphor was used, patients were asked to explain it and assess its helpfulness. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients participated. Nine oncologists used metaphors to describe molecular testing; 25 of 66 (38%) participants heard a metaphor, 13 of 25 (52%) were questioned, 11 of 13 (85%) demonstrated understanding and reported the metaphor as being useful. Seventeen metaphors (bus driver, boss, switch, battery, circuit, broken light switch, gas pedal, key turning off an engine, key opening a lock, food for growth, satellite and antenna, interstate, alternate circuit, traffic jam, blueprint, room names, Florida citrus) were used to explain eight molecular testing terms (driver mutations, targeted therapy, hormones, receptors, resistance, exon specificity, genes, and cancer signatures). CONCLUSION: Because metaphors have proven to be a useful communication tool in other settings, these 17 metaphors may be useful for oncologists to adapt to their own setting to explain molecular testing terms. The Oncologist 2017;22:445-449Implications for Practice: This article provides a snapshot of 17 metaphors that proved useful in describing 8 complicated molecular testing terms at 3 sites. As complex tumor sequencing becomes standard of care in clinics and widely used in clinical research, the use of metaphors may prove a useful communication tool, as it has in other settings. Although this study had a small sample, almost all of the patients who were exposed to metaphors in explaining molecular testing reported it as being helpful to their understanding. These 17 metaphors are examples of potentially useful communication tools that oncologists can adapt to their own practice.