Cited by 1BRCA gene mutations in cancerCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Abstract P6-04-13: The role of precision medicine in "real-life" management of breast cancer patients: A survey assessing the current use and attitudes towards tumor molecular sequencing in clinical practice

Gingras, I, Sonnenblick, A, Dolci, S, de Azambuja, E, Paesmans, M, Delaloge, S, Piccart, MJ, Sotiriou, C +2 more·2016·Cancer Research

Abstract

Background: Personalized medicine is a rising paradigm in cancer care. The identification of pathways involved in carcinogenesis along with the development of targeted therapies has revolutionized cancer treatment. There is increasing availability of technologies that can interrogate the genomic landscape of the tumor; however, it is still uncertain whether such platforms are used in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a 28-item survey to investigate the current use of tumor molecular sequencing in the management of breast cancer patients. A link to the online survey was communicated via various platforms such as the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European School of Oncology (ESO) newsletter, and via a dedicated mailing by the Breast International Group (BIG) and other academic groups. Descriptive statistical analysis and Fisher's exact tests were applied to explore potential association between the demographic characteristics and responses. Results: A total of 211 physicians from 35 countries participated to the study between the 9 March and 3 June 2015, with 92% fully completed questionnaires. The mean age of the participants was 45 years (range 27-77). The majority of responders were medical oncologists (88%), practicing in Europe (69%) and working in academic institutions (66%). 62% (130/211) of participants had never requested tumor molecular sequencing for breast cancer patients. Working in academic institutions and having more time allocated to research were associated with the use of tumor molecular sequencing (p = 0.007 and 0.009, respectively). For the 81 participants that used tumor molecular sequencing in the past (Table 1), there was a significant association between accessibility and frequency of use (p=0.02). 92% (181/211) of participants claimed that they would probably use tumor molecular sequencing more often if it was more accessible. Lack of funding and lack of access to the technology were the main reasons for poor endorsement. 89% of participants believe that tumor molecular sequencing will play a major role in the management of breast cancer patients in the future. Current weak evidence and poor access to matched targeted therapy are the main concerns against a wider use of these platforms in clinical practice. Table 1. Summary of replies from the 81 participants that used tumor molecular sequencing for breast cancer patientsQuestionResponseN (%)In what percentage of your breast cancer patients has tumor molecular sequencing been performed at least once?≤5%55 (68%) >5%26 (32%)How often do the results lead to enrollment in a clinical trial?≤10%53 (65%) >10%28 (35%)How confident are you in interpreting tumor sequencing results?Not at all/A little17 (21%) Somewhat/Highly64 (79%)Do you consider molecular sequencing platforms accessible?Not at all/A little45 (55%) Somewhat/Highly36 (45%) Conclusion: Our survey indicates that molecular sequencing platforms are sometimes used, albeit not widely in guiding management of breast cancer patients. Poor accessibility may contribute to the low frequency of use, but lack of evidence and poor access to matched targeted therapy are also major concerns. Citation Format: Gingras I, Sonnenblick A, Dolci S, de Azambuja E, Paesmans M, Delaloge S, Piccart MJ, Sotiriou C, Michail I, Azim Jr HA. The role of precision medicine in "real-life" management of breast cancer patients: A survey assessing the current use and attitudes towards tumor molecular sequencing in clinical practice. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-04-13.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p6-04-13

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gingras, I., Sonnenblick, A., Dolci, S., de Azambuja, E., Paesmans, M., Delaloge, S., Piccart, M., Sotiriou, C., Michail, I., & Azim, H.
Affiliations
  • Institut Jules Bordet (BE)
  • Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium; Institut Gustave-Roussy, Paris, France
Venue
Cancer Research
Published
2016-02-15
Volume
76
Issue
4_Supplement
Pages
P6-04-13-P6-04-13
ISSN
  • 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7445
OpenAlex
W2220414615
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 1
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
breast cancer, precision medicine, physician attitudes, targeted therapy, genomic profiling, funding barriers, academic vs community practice, medical oncologists, real-world management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review