Cargando…

The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters

PURPOSE: The practice of “genomic” (or “personalized”) medicine requires the availability of appropriate diagnostic testing. Our study objective was to identify the reasons for health systems to bring next-generation sequencing into their clinical laboratories and to understand the process by which...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crawford, James M., Bry, Lynn, Pfeifer, John, Caughron, Samuel K., Black-Schaffer, Stephen, Kant, Jeffrey A., Kaufman, Jill H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262758/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25010053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.60
_version_ 1782348460627853312
author Crawford, James M.
Bry, Lynn
Pfeifer, John
Caughron, Samuel K.
Black-Schaffer, Stephen
Kant, Jeffrey A.
Kaufman, Jill H.
author_facet Crawford, James M.
Bry, Lynn
Pfeifer, John
Caughron, Samuel K.
Black-Schaffer, Stephen
Kant, Jeffrey A.
Kaufman, Jill H.
author_sort Crawford, James M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The practice of “genomic” (or “personalized”) medicine requires the availability of appropriate diagnostic testing. Our study objective was to identify the reasons for health systems to bring next-generation sequencing into their clinical laboratories and to understand the process by which such decisions were made. Such information may be of value to other health systems seeking to provide next-generation sequencing testing to their patient populations. METHODS: A standardized open-ended interview was conducted with the laboratory medical directors and/or department of pathology chairs of 13 different academic institutions in 10 different states. RESULTS: Genomic testing for cancer dominated the institutional decision making, with three primary reasons: more effective delivery of cancer care, the perceived need for institutional leadership in the field of genomics, and the premise that genomics will eventually be cost-effective. Barriers to implementation included implementation cost; the time and effort needed to maintain this newer testing; challenges in interpreting genetic variants; establishing the bioinformatics infrastructure; and curating data from medical, ethical, and legal standpoints. Ultimate success depended on alignment with institutional strengths and priorities and working closely with institutional clinical programs. CONCLUSION: These early adopters uniformly viewed genomic analysis as an imperative for developing their expertise in the implementation and practice of genomic medicine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4262758
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42627582014-12-16 The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters Crawford, James M. Bry, Lynn Pfeifer, John Caughron, Samuel K. Black-Schaffer, Stephen Kant, Jeffrey A. Kaufman, Jill H. Genet Med Original Research Article PURPOSE: The practice of “genomic” (or “personalized”) medicine requires the availability of appropriate diagnostic testing. Our study objective was to identify the reasons for health systems to bring next-generation sequencing into their clinical laboratories and to understand the process by which such decisions were made. Such information may be of value to other health systems seeking to provide next-generation sequencing testing to their patient populations. METHODS: A standardized open-ended interview was conducted with the laboratory medical directors and/or department of pathology chairs of 13 different academic institutions in 10 different states. RESULTS: Genomic testing for cancer dominated the institutional decision making, with three primary reasons: more effective delivery of cancer care, the perceived need for institutional leadership in the field of genomics, and the premise that genomics will eventually be cost-effective. Barriers to implementation included implementation cost; the time and effort needed to maintain this newer testing; challenges in interpreting genetic variants; establishing the bioinformatics infrastructure; and curating data from medical, ethical, and legal standpoints. Ultimate success depended on alignment with institutional strengths and priorities and working closely with institutional clinical programs. CONCLUSION: These early adopters uniformly viewed genomic analysis as an imperative for developing their expertise in the implementation and practice of genomic medicine. Nature Publishing Group 2014-12 2014-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4262758/ /pubmed/25010053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.60 Text en Copyright © 2014 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This work is licensed. under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Crawford, James M.
Bry, Lynn
Pfeifer, John
Caughron, Samuel K.
Black-Schaffer, Stephen
Kant, Jeffrey A.
Kaufman, Jill H.
The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters
title The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters
title_full The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters
title_fullStr The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters
title_full_unstemmed The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters
title_short The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters
title_sort business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262758/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25010053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.60
work_keys_str_mv AT crawfordjamesm thebusinessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT brylynn thebusinessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT pfeiferjohn thebusinessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT caughronsamuelk thebusinessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT blackschafferstephen thebusinessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT kantjeffreya thebusinessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT kaufmanjillh thebusinessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT crawfordjamesm businessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT brylynn businessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT pfeiferjohn businessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT caughronsamuelk businessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT blackschafferstephen businessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT kantjeffreya businessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters
AT kaufmanjillh businessofgenomictestingasurveyofearlyadopters