Document Type
Article
Publication Date
10-3-2016
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to assess physician interest in molecular prognosic testing for patients with early stage colon cancer, and identify factors associated with the likelihood of test adoption.
METHODS: We identified physicians who care for patients with early-stage (pN0) colon cancer patients, mailed them a survey, and analyzed survey responses to assess clinician receptivity to the use of a new molecular test (GUCY2C) that identifies patients at risk for recurrence, and clinician readiness to act on abnormal test results.
RESULTS: Of 104 eligible potential respondents, 41 completed and returned the survey. Among responding physicians, 56 % were receptive to using the new prognostic test. Multivariable analyses showed that physicians in academic medical centers were significantly more receptive to molecular test use than those in non-academic settings. Forty-one percent of respondents were ready to act on abnormal molecular test results. Physicians who viewed current staging methods as inaccurate and were confident in their capacity to incorporate molecular testing in practice were more likely to say they would act on abnormal test results.
CONCLUSIONS: Physician receptivity to molecular diagnostic testing for early-stage colon cancer patients is likely to be influenced by practice setting and perceptions related to delivering quality care to patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01972737.
Recommended Citation
Myers, Ronald E.; Wolf, Thomas; Shwae, Phillip; Hegarty, Sarah E.; Peiper, Stephen C.; and Waldman, Scott A., "A survey of physician receptivity to molecular diagnostic testing and readiness to act on results for early-stage colon cancer patients." (2016). Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Faculty Papers. Paper 76.
https://jdc.jefferson.edu/petfp/76
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PubMed ID
27716119
Comments
This article has been peer reviewed. It is the author’s final published version in BMC Cancer Volume 16, Issue 1, October 2016, Article number 766.
The published version is available at DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2812-1. Copyright © Myers et al.