Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction: Multicancer detection tests (MCDs) are blood-based tests designed to detect multiple cancer types. It is currently unclear whether these cancer screening tests improve mortality. To understand awareness of MCDs among providers and patients, as well as explore how they perceive the benefits, harms, and acceptability of MCDs, we have undertaken a focus group study in primary care physicians (PCPs) and laypersons to explore knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of cancer screening using MCDs.

Primary care physicians and laypersons' perceptions of multicancer detection clinical trial designs.

Background: The National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Research Network is launching a pilot study (Vanguard) to determine feasibility of successful completion of a clinical trial of multicancer detection tests. This focus group study reports perceptions of primary care physicians and laypersons of different clinical trial designs and willingness to participate in a multicancer detection clinical trial.

Methods: We undertook 14 focus groups with 88 laypersons and 6 focus groups with 45 primary care physicians.

Study design considerations for trials to evaluate multicancer early detection assays for clinical utility.

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness.

Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues Surrounding Biospecimen Research Conducted or Supported in the USA.

Rapid and dramatic advances in molecular sequencing technology, as well as medical discoveries from genome-wide association and other precision medicine studies, have highlighted the longstanding ethical and legal challenges research biobanks consistently face. Whose authority is needed to conduct research with excised tissue, and how that authority may be exercised with respect and transparency, are central questions. This review article explores how scholars have addressed ethical and legal controversies such as the proper breadth and scope of consent for collection and future research use of biological specimens and data, the importance of disclosing individual research results and secondary findings, and collecting cadaver tissue from deceased persons.

Molecular Features of Cancers Exhibiting Exceptional Responses to Treatment.

A small fraction of cancer patients with advanced disease survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors. Molecular mechanisms for exceptional responses to therapy have been identified by genomic analysis of tumor biopsies from individual patients. Here, we analyzed tumor biopsies from an unbiased cohort of 111 exceptional responder patients using multiple platforms to profile genetic and epigenetic aberrations as well as the tumor microenvironment.

The Exceptional Responders Initiative: Feasibility of a National Cancer Institute Pilot Study.

Background: Tumor molecular profiling from patients experiencing exceptional responses to systemic therapy may provide insights into cancer biology and improve treatment tailoring. This pilot study evaluates the feasibility of identifying exceptional responders retrospectively, obtaining pre-exceptional response treatment tumor tissues, and analyzing them with state-of-the-art molecular analysis tools to identify potential molecular explanations for responses.

Methods: Exceptional response was defined as partial (PR) or complete (CR) response to a systemic treatment with population PR or CR rate less than 10% or an unusually long response (eg, duration >3 times published median).

The Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) Trial: Lessons for Genomic Trial Design.

Background: The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology.

Methods: Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements.

Toward Improving Practices for Submission of Diagnostic Tissue Blocks for National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

Objectives: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) National Clinical Trials Network performs phase II and III clinical trials, which increasingly rely on the submission of diagnostic formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks for biomarker assessment. Simultaneously, advances in precision oncology require that clinical centers maintain diagnostic specimens for ancillary, standard-of-care diagnostics. This has caused tissue blocks to become a limited resource for advancing the NCI clinical trial enterprise and the practice of modern molecular pathology.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Comprehension of Biospecimen Collection: a Nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center NCI Community Oncology Research Program Study.

To examine whether (a) non-minority participants differed from racial minority participants in the understanding of biospecimens collected for research purposes, (b) patients differed from comparison group in their understanding of the ways their biospecimens could be used by researchers, and (c) participants received adequate information before consenting to donate blood for research studies. We analyzed cross-sectional data from female breast cancer patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) clinical sites and a healthy comparison group. After reading a consent form related to biospecimens and consenting to participate in a clinical trial, participants' understanding of biospecimen collection was evaluated.

Development of a consensus approach for return of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project.

The active debate about the return of incidental or secondary findings in research has primarily focused on return to research participants, or in some cases, family members. Particular attention has been paid to return of genomic findings. Yet, research may generate other types of findings that warrant consideration for return, including findings related to the pathology of donated biospecimens.

Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Commentators are concerned that broad consent may not provide biospecimen donors with sufficient information regarding possible future research uses of their tissue. We surveyed with interviews 302 cancer patients who had recently provided broad consent at four diverse academic medical centers. The majority of donors believed that the consent form provided them with sufficient information regarding future possible uses of their biospecimens.

Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017.

Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review.

Genomic Research with Organs and Tissues Originating from Transplant Donors: Ethical Considerations for the GTEx Project.

The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project aims to study human gene expression and regulation in multiple tissues from individual post-mortem biospecimen donors. This case report involves GTEx donors who were discovered after biospecimen collection to have been the recipients of solid organ or tissue transplants for therapeutic purposes. This scenario prompted us to consider whether authorization from the GTEx research donor’s next of kin was legally and ethically acceptable to allow genomic research on tissue originally derived from a therapeutic organ donor.

Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions.

Different types of consent are used to obtain human biospecimens for future research. This variation has resulted in confusion regarding what research is permitted, inadvertent constraints on future research, and research proceeding without consent. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center's Department of Bioethics held a workshop to consider the ethical acceptability of addressing these concerns by using broad consent for future research on stored biospecimens.

NCI think tank concerning the identifiability of biospecimens and "omic" data.

Purpose: On 11 and 12 June 2012, the National Cancer Institute hosted a think tank concerning the identifiability of biospecimens and "omic" data in order to explore challenges surrounding this complex and multifaceted topic.

Methods: The think tank brought together 46 leaders from several fields, including cancer genomics, bioinformatics, human subject protection, patient advocacy, and commercial genetics.

Results: The first day involved presentations regarding the state of the science of reidentification; current and proposed regulatory frameworks for assessing identifiability; developments in law, industry, and biotechnology; and the expectations of patients and research participants.

Intersection of biobanking and clinical care: should discrepant diagnoses and pathological findings be returned to research participants?

Diagnostic discrepancies occur when the diagnosis made on a biospecimen during the course of review at a biobank differs from the original clinical diagnosis. These diagnostic discrepancies detected during biobanking present unique challenges that are distinct from other types of research results or incidental findings. The proposed process for reporting diagnostic discrepancies or pathological incidental findings identified through a quality assurance evaluation at the biobank includes verification of the biospecimen identity, verification of the diagnosis within the biobank, and re-review of the case by the pathologist at the biospecimen collection site.