The impact of tumor profiling approaches and genomic data strategies for cancer precision medicine.

Background: The diversity of clinical tumor profiling approaches (small panels to whole exomes with matched or unmatched germline analysis) may engender uncertainty about their benefits and liabilities, particularly in light of reported germline false positives in tumor-only profiling and use of global mutational and/or neoantigen data. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of genomic analysis strategies on error rates and data interpretation across contexts and ancestries.

Methods: We modeled common tumor profiling modalities-large (n = 300 genes), medium (n = 48 genes), and small (n = 15 genes) panels-using clinical whole exomes (WES) from 157 patients with lung or colon adenocarcinoma.

Germline Findings in Tumor-Only Sequencing: Points to Consider for Clinicians and Laboratories.

Precision oncology holds great potential to improve patient therapies and outcomes. Tumor sequencing is rapidly moving into clinical care as our understanding of the cancer genome and the availability of targeted therapies increase. Analysis of the cancer genome is most informative when paired with germline genomic DNA to delineate inherited and somatic variants.

The impact of disclosing financial ties in research and clinical care: a systematic review.

Background: Despite increased demand for disclosure of physician and researcher financial ties (FTs) to industry, little is known about patients', research participants', or journal readers' attitudes toward FTs.

Methods: We systematically reviewed original, quantitative studies of patients', research participants', or journal readers' views about FTs to pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for English-language studies containing original, quantitative data on attitudes toward FTs.

Self-reported practices and attitudes of US oncologists regarding off-protocol therapy.

Purpose: Investigational cancer therapies being tested in clinical trials may be available outside of trials, or off-protocol (OPRx). We evaluated the practices and attitudes among US oncologists with regard to this controversial practice.

Methods: We mailed an anonymous survey to a random sample of US medical oncologists evaluating frequency and prevalence of OPRx and evaluated the correlation between demographic factors, attitudes, and practice.