Oncologists' selection of genetic and molecular testing in the evolving landscape of stage II colorectal cancer

Aparna R. Parikh, Nancy L. Keating, Pang Hsiang Liu, Stacy W. Gray, Carrie N. Klabunde, Katherine L. Kahn, David Haggstrom, Sapna Syngal, Benjamin Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Little is known about the roles of genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening in the formulation of predictive and prognostic assessments for patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: From 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium and evaluated oncologists' selection of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, germline testing for MMR genes, BRAF and KRAS mutation analysis, and Oncotype DX in stage II CRC. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three vignettes that varied by strength of CRC family history. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with test selection. Results: Among 327 oncologists, MSI and/or IHC forMMRproteins were most frequently selected (n = 205; 64%), with 82% versus 53% choosing MSI/IHC testing in patients with strong versus no CRC family history, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95% CI, 2.07 to 7.22). KRAS and Oncotype DX testing were chosen by 24% and 38% of oncologists, respectively. Graduates of non-US and Canadian medical schools and physicians compensated by fee-for-service or on the basis of productivity were more likely to choose KRAS testing versus those receiving salaries not on the basis of productivity (OR, 2.16;95% CI, 1.17 to 3.99; and OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.66, respectively). Fee-for-service or productivity-based salaries were also associated with increased odds of Oncotype DX testing (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.55). Conclusion: Among surveyed oncologists, we found undertesting and overtesting related to genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening for patients with stage II CRC, highlighting the need for improved implementation, targeted education, and evaluation of organizational and financial arrangements to promote the appropriate use of such tests.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e308-e317
JournalJournal of Oncology Practice
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Genetic Testing
Colorectal Neoplasms
Microsatellite Instability
Odds Ratio
Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Neoplasms
Fee-for-Service Plans
DNA Mismatch Repair
Salaries and Fringe Benefits
Immunohistochemistry
Physicians
Medical Schools
Logistic Models
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Oncologists
Education
Mutation
Genes
Neoplasms
Proteins

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Oncology(nursing)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Parikh, A. R., Keating, N. L., Liu, P. H., Gray, S. W., Klabunde, C. N., Kahn, K. L., ... Kim, B. (2016). Oncologists' selection of genetic and molecular testing in the evolving landscape of stage II colorectal cancer. Journal of Oncology Practice, 12(3), e308-e317. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2015.007062

Oncologists' selection of genetic and molecular testing in the evolving landscape of stage II colorectal cancer. / Parikh, Aparna R.; Keating, Nancy L.; Liu, Pang Hsiang; Gray, Stacy W.; Klabunde, Carrie N.; Kahn, Katherine L.; Haggstrom, David; Syngal, Sapna; Kim, Benjamin.

In: Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 12, No. 3, 01.03.2016, p. e308-e317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Parikh, AR, Keating, NL, Liu, PH, Gray, SW, Klabunde, CN, Kahn, KL, Haggstrom, D, Syngal, S & Kim, B 2016, 'Oncologists' selection of genetic and molecular testing in the evolving landscape of stage II colorectal cancer', Journal of Oncology Practice, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. e308-e317. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2015.007062
Parikh, Aparna R. ; Keating, Nancy L. ; Liu, Pang Hsiang ; Gray, Stacy W. ; Klabunde, Carrie N. ; Kahn, Katherine L. ; Haggstrom, David ; Syngal, Sapna ; Kim, Benjamin. / Oncologists' selection of genetic and molecular testing in the evolving landscape of stage II colorectal cancer. In: Journal of Oncology Practice. 2016 ; Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. e308-e317.
@article{009d298b07ff4788abea5af60c443174,
title = "Oncologists' selection of genetic and molecular testing in the evolving landscape of stage II colorectal cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: Little is known about the roles of genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening in the formulation of predictive and prognostic assessments for patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: From 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium and evaluated oncologists' selection of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, germline testing for MMR genes, BRAF and KRAS mutation analysis, and Oncotype DX in stage II CRC. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three vignettes that varied by strength of CRC family history. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with test selection. Results: Among 327 oncologists, MSI and/or IHC forMMRproteins were most frequently selected (n = 205; 64{\%}), with 82{\%} versus 53{\%} choosing MSI/IHC testing in patients with strong versus no CRC family history, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95{\%} CI, 2.07 to 7.22). KRAS and Oncotype DX testing were chosen by 24{\%} and 38{\%} of oncologists, respectively. Graduates of non-US and Canadian medical schools and physicians compensated by fee-for-service or on the basis of productivity were more likely to choose KRAS testing versus those receiving salaries not on the basis of productivity (OR, 2.16;95{\%} CI, 1.17 to 3.99; and OR, 1.94; 95{\%} CI, 1.02 to 3.66, respectively). Fee-for-service or productivity-based salaries were also associated with increased odds of Oncotype DX testing (OR, 2.04; 95{\%} CI, 1.17 to 3.55). Conclusion: Among surveyed oncologists, we found undertesting and overtesting related to genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening for patients with stage II CRC, highlighting the need for improved implementation, targeted education, and evaluation of organizational and financial arrangements to promote the appropriate use of such tests.",
author = "Parikh, {Aparna R.} and Keating, {Nancy L.} and Liu, {Pang Hsiang} and Gray, {Stacy W.} and Klabunde, {Carrie N.} and Kahn, {Katherine L.} and David Haggstrom and Sapna Syngal and Benjamin Kim",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JOP.2015.007062",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "e308--e317",
journal = "Journal of Oncology Practice",
issn = "1554-7477",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oncologists' selection of genetic and molecular testing in the evolving landscape of stage II colorectal cancer

AU - Parikh, Aparna R.

AU - Keating, Nancy L.

AU - Liu, Pang Hsiang

AU - Gray, Stacy W.

AU - Klabunde, Carrie N.

AU - Kahn, Katherine L.

AU - Haggstrom, David

AU - Syngal, Sapna

AU - Kim, Benjamin

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Purpose: Little is known about the roles of genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening in the formulation of predictive and prognostic assessments for patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: From 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium and evaluated oncologists' selection of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, germline testing for MMR genes, BRAF and KRAS mutation analysis, and Oncotype DX in stage II CRC. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three vignettes that varied by strength of CRC family history. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with test selection. Results: Among 327 oncologists, MSI and/or IHC forMMRproteins were most frequently selected (n = 205; 64%), with 82% versus 53% choosing MSI/IHC testing in patients with strong versus no CRC family history, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95% CI, 2.07 to 7.22). KRAS and Oncotype DX testing were chosen by 24% and 38% of oncologists, respectively. Graduates of non-US and Canadian medical schools and physicians compensated by fee-for-service or on the basis of productivity were more likely to choose KRAS testing versus those receiving salaries not on the basis of productivity (OR, 2.16;95% CI, 1.17 to 3.99; and OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.66, respectively). Fee-for-service or productivity-based salaries were also associated with increased odds of Oncotype DX testing (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.55). Conclusion: Among surveyed oncologists, we found undertesting and overtesting related to genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening for patients with stage II CRC, highlighting the need for improved implementation, targeted education, and evaluation of organizational and financial arrangements to promote the appropriate use of such tests.

AB - Purpose: Little is known about the roles of genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening in the formulation of predictive and prognostic assessments for patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: From 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium and evaluated oncologists' selection of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, germline testing for MMR genes, BRAF and KRAS mutation analysis, and Oncotype DX in stage II CRC. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three vignettes that varied by strength of CRC family history. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with test selection. Results: Among 327 oncologists, MSI and/or IHC forMMRproteins were most frequently selected (n = 205; 64%), with 82% versus 53% choosing MSI/IHC testing in patients with strong versus no CRC family history, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95% CI, 2.07 to 7.22). KRAS and Oncotype DX testing were chosen by 24% and 38% of oncologists, respectively. Graduates of non-US and Canadian medical schools and physicians compensated by fee-for-service or on the basis of productivity were more likely to choose KRAS testing versus those receiving salaries not on the basis of productivity (OR, 2.16;95% CI, 1.17 to 3.99; and OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.66, respectively). Fee-for-service or productivity-based salaries were also associated with increased odds of Oncotype DX testing (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.55). Conclusion: Among surveyed oncologists, we found undertesting and overtesting related to genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening for patients with stage II CRC, highlighting the need for improved implementation, targeted education, and evaluation of organizational and financial arrangements to promote the appropriate use of such tests.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962573004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962573004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JOP.2015.007062

DO - 10.1200/JOP.2015.007062

M3 - Article

C2 - 26962170

AN - SCOPUS:84962573004

VL - 12

SP - e308-e317

JO - Journal of Oncology Practice

JF - Journal of Oncology Practice

SN - 1554-7477

IS - 3

ER -