Translational Research in Cancer Genetics: The Road Less Traveled

Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Public Health Genomics (Impact Factor: 2.21). 01/2011; 14(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1159/000272897
Source: PubMed


Gene discoveries in cancer have the potential for clinical and public health applications. To take advantage of such discoveries, a translational research agenda is needed to take discoveries from the bench to population health impact. To assess the current status of translational research in cancer genetics, we analyzed the extramural grant portfolio of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) from Fiscal Year 2007, as well as the cancer genetic research articles published in 2007. We classified both funded grants and publications as follows: T0 as discovery research; T1 as research to develop a candidate health application (e.g., test or therapy); T2 as research that evaluates a candidate application and develops evidence-based recommendations; T3 as research that assesses how to integrate an evidence-based recommendation into cancer care and prevention; and T4 as research that assesses health outcomes and population impact. We found that 1.8% of the grant portfolio and 0.6% of the published literature was T2 research or beyond. In addition to discovery research in cancer genetics, a translational research infrastructure is urgently needed to methodically evaluate and translate gene discoveries for cancer care and prevention.

Download full-text


Available from: Sheri D Schully, Dec 23, 2013
  • Source
    • "The translation of genomic discoveries into public health practice has been slow [29-32]. At a time when the benefits of PCa screening are uncertain it is essential to understand the value of genomic information in motivating healthy behaviors and medical decision-making in persons at increased risk of the disease and providers. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed. A mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments. Data was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy. Although similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.
    BMC Health Services Research 07/2013; 13(1):279. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-279 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this commentary, I discuss how the promise of genomics and personalized medicine (GPM) is currently not matched by the evidence that supports its use in clinical practice. The mismatch between expectations and reality can be addressed by placing greater emphasis on multidisciplinary translation research and by stakeholder-driven collaboration that uses such research to address various and occasionally competing factors affecting the integration of genomic discoveries into clinical practice.Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2010) 87 6, 635-638. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.4
    Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics 06/2010; 87(6):635-8. DOI:10.1038/clpt.2010.4 · 7.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article focuses on the overarching question: how can we use existing data to develop the capacity to improve the evidence base on personalized medicine technologies and particularly regarding their utilization and clinical utility? We focus on data from health payers who are key stakeholders in capacity building, as they need data to guide decisions and they develop data as part of operations. Broadly defined, health payers include insurance carriers, third party payers, health-plan sponsors and organized delivery systems. Data from health payers have not yet been widely used to assess personalized medicine. Now, with an increasing number of personalized technologies covered and reimbursed by health payers, and an increasing number of emerging technologies that will require policy decisions, there is a great opportunity to develop the evidence base using payer data and by engaging with these stakeholders. Here, we describe data that are available from, and are being developed by, health payers and assess how these data can be further developed to increase the capacity for future research, using three examples. The examples suggest that payer data can be used to examine clinical utility and approaches can be developed that simultaneously address the characteristics of personalized medicine, real world data and organizations. These examples can now help us to elucidate how to best examine clinical utility in actual practice and build evaluation approaches that can be applied to future technologies.
    Personalized Medicine 07/2010; 7(4):427-439. DOI:10.2217/pme.10.36 · 1.34 Impact Factor
Show more