Interactive or static reports to guide clinical interpretation of cancer genomics.

dc.contributor.author

Gray, Stacy W

dc.contributor.author

Gagan, Jeffrey

dc.contributor.author

Cerami, Ethan

dc.contributor.author

Cronin, Angel M

dc.contributor.author

Uno, Hajime

dc.contributor.author

Oliver, Nelly

dc.contributor.author

Lowenstein, Carol

dc.contributor.author

Lederman, Ruth

dc.contributor.author

Revette, Anna

dc.contributor.author

Suarez, Aaron

dc.contributor.author

Lee, Charlotte

dc.contributor.author

Bryan, Jordan

dc.contributor.author

Sholl, Lynette

dc.contributor.author

Van Allen, Eliezer M

dc.date.accessioned

2021-02-24T21:01:53Z

dc.date.available

2021-02-24T21:01:53Z

dc.date.issued

2018-05

dc.date.updated

2021-02-24T21:01:53Z

dc.description.abstract

Objective

Misinterpretation of complex genomic data presents a major challenge in the implementation of precision oncology. We sought to determine whether interactive genomic reports with embedded clinician education and optimized data visualization improved genomic data interpretation.

Materials and methods

We conducted a randomized, vignette-based survey study to determine whether exposure to interactive reports for a somatic gene panel, as compared to static reports, improves physicians' genomic comprehension and report-related satisfaction (overall scores calculated across 3 vignettes, range 0-18 and 1-4, respectively, higher score corresponding with improved endpoints).

Results

One hundred and five physicians at a tertiary cancer center participated (29% participation rate): 67% medical, 20% pediatric, 7% radiation, and 7% surgical oncology; 37% female. Prior to viewing the case-based vignettes, 34% of the physicians reported difficulty making treatment recommendations based on the standard static report. After vignette/report exposure, physicians' overall comprehension scores did not differ by report type (mean score: interactive 11.6 vs static 10.5, difference = 1.1, 95% CI, -0.3, 2.5, P = .13). However, physicians exposed to the interactive report were more likely to correctly assess sequencing quality (P < .001) and understand when reports needed to be interpreted with caution (eg, low tumor purity; P = .02). Overall satisfaction scores were higher in the interactive group (mean score 2.5 vs 2.1, difference = 0.4, 95% CI, 0.2-0.7, P = .001).

Discussion and conclusion

Interactive genomic reports may improve physicians' ability to accurately assess genomic data and increase report-related satisfaction. Additional research in users' genomic needs and efforts to integrate interactive reports into electronic health records may facilitate the implementation of precision oncology.
dc.identifier

4791826

dc.identifier.issn

1067-5027

dc.identifier.issn

1527-974X

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22388

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

dc.relation.ispartof

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1093/jamia/ocx150

dc.subject

Humans

dc.subject

Neoplasms

dc.subject

Sequence Analysis, DNA

dc.subject

Comprehension

dc.subject

Data Display

dc.subject

Genomics

dc.subject

Medical Oncology

dc.subject

Clinical Competence

dc.subject

Female

dc.subject

Male

dc.subject

Precision Medicine

dc.title

Interactive or static reports to guide clinical interpretation of cancer genomics.

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Bryan, Jordan|0000-0002-4984-0516

pubs.begin-page

458

pubs.end-page

464

pubs.issue

5

pubs.organisational-group

Student

pubs.organisational-group

Statistical Science

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Trinity College of Arts & Sciences

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

25

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Interactive or static reports to guide clinical interpretation of cancer genomics.pdf
Size:
283.32 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format