Healthcare professionals' attitudes toward cancer precision medicine: A systematic review.

Use of precision medicine in oncology is burgeoning and can provide patients with new treatment options. However, it is not clear how precision medicine is impacting healthcare professionals (HCPs), particularly with regards to their concerns about this new approach. We therefore synthesized the existing literature on HCPs' attitudes toward cancer precision medicine. We searched four databases for relevant articles. Two reviewers screened eligible articles and extracted data. We assessed the quality of each article using the QualSyst tool. We found 22 articles, representing 4,321 HCPs (63.7% cancer specialists). HCPs held largely positive attitudes toward cancer precision medicine, including their capacity to facilitate treatment decisions and provide prognostic information. However, they also had concerns regarding costs, insurance coverage, limited HCP knowledge about precision medicine, potential misuse, difficulties accessing the tests, and delays in receiving test results. Most HCPs felt that test-related decisions should be shared between families and HCPs. HCPs intended to disclose actionable results but were less inclined to disclose negative/secondary findings. HCPs had a strong preference for genetic counselor involvement when disclosing germline findings. Most HCPs intended to use somatic and germline tests in their future practice but the extent to which pharmacogenomic tests will be used is uncertain. HCPs indicated that additional evidence supporting test utility and increased availability of treatment guidelines could facilitate the use of testing. HCPs held generally positive attitudes toward cancer precision medicine, however there were some key concerns. Addressing concerns early, devising educational support for HCPs and developing guidelines may facilitate the successful implementation of precision medicine trials in the future.

'Why us?' Causal attributions of childhood cancer survivors, survivors' parents and community comparisons - a mixed methods analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the cause of their cancer is important for many cancer patients. Childhood cancer survivors'/survivors' parents' beliefs about cancer etiology are understudied. We aimed to assess survivors'/parents' beliefs about what causes childhood cancer, compared with beliefs in the community. We also investigated the influence of clinical and socio-demographic characteristics on the participants' beliefs about cancer etiology. METHODS: This two-stage study investigated the participants' beliefs, by using questionnaires assessing causal attributions related to childhood cancer (stage 1) and then undertaking telephone interviews (stage 2; survivors/survivors' parents only) to get an in-depth understanding of survivors'/survivors' parents beliefs. We computed multivariable regressions to identify factors associated with the most commonly endorsed attributions: bad luck/chance, environmental factors and genetics. We analyzed interviews using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred one individuals (64.6% survivors and 35.4% survivors' parents) and 510 community comparisons (53.1% community adults, 46.9% community parents) completed the question on causal attributions. We conducted 87 in-depth interviews. Survivors/survivors' parents (73.9%) were more likely to believe that chance/bad luck caused childhood cancer than community participants (42.4%). Community participants more frequently endorsed that genetics (75.3%) and environmental factors (65.3%) played a major role in childhood cancer etiology (versus survivors' and survivors' parents: genetics 20.6%, environmental factors: 19.3%). Community participants, participants with a first language other than English, and reporting a lower quality of life were less likely to attribute bad luck as a cause of childhood cancer. Community participants, all participants with a higher income and higher education were more likely to attribute childhood cancer etiology to environmental factors. CONCLUSION: Causal attributions differed between survivors/survivors' parents and community participants. Most of the parents and survivors seem to understand that there is nothing they have done to cause the cancer. Understanding survivors' and survivors' parents' causal attributions may be crucial to address misconceptions, offer access to services and to adapt current and future health behaviors.