Full course description

About this Course

Precision Medicine for Your Practice is a series of short (20-30 min), online modules covering specific topics in genomics and precision medicine. In this module, Interpreting Results from Somatic Cancer Panel Testing, participants will learn how to find and use important information on somatic cancer testing panel reports. What are the key components of a test report? What do specific findings mean? Learn how to identify important test characteristics to compare and contrast offerings from different labs, find actionable information on the test report, and interpret results in the context of the individual patient using the five parts of this module: overview information via an animated video; practice cases to facilitate learning-by-doing; "dig deeper" for more in-depth topics; and logistics and additional resources for more detail.

Already enrolled?   Access the course directly here.

CNE Disclosures

Release Date: June 06, 2017
Expiration Date: June 06, 2018

Objectives
Upon completion of this educational activity, the learner will be able to:

  • Identify important test characteristics to compare and contrast offerings from different labs
  • Find actionable information on the report
  • Interpret results in the context of the individual patient

Target Audience
This activity is designed to meet the educational needs of practicing nurses and/or advanced practice nurses, physicians and physician assistants.

CNE Approval Statement
The Jackson Laboratory is co-providing this continuing nursing education activity with the American Medical Association and Scripps Translational Science Institute. This continuing nursing education activity was approved by the Northeast Multi-State Division (NE-MSD), an accredited approver by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.

Claiming Your Credit
In order to claim credit 1) answer the pre-assessment questions, 2) work through the module content in its entirety, 3) successfully complete the post-assessment answering 2 out of 3 questions correctly and 4) complete the evaluation.   
Nurses are eligible for a maximum of .50 contact hours upon the completion of this activity.

Planning Committee

  • Emily Edelman, MS, CGC, The Jackson Laboratory
  • Abdallah Elias, MD, Shodair Children's Hospital 
  • Therese Ingram Nissen, MA, The Jackson Laboratory
  • Katie Johansen Taber, PhD, American Medical Association
  • Jeanette McCarthy, MPH, PhD, UCSF School of Medicine
  • Laura Nicholson, MD, PhD, Scripps Translational Science Institute 
  • James O'Leary, MBA, Genetic Alliance
  • Kate Reed, MPH, ScM, CGC, The Jackson Laboratory
  • Suzanna Schott, ScM, CGC, The Jackson Laboratory 
  • Janet K. Williams, PhD, RN, FAAN, University of Iowa

Faculty

  • Barry D. Dickinson, PhD, CME Program Committee, AMA (Content Reviewer)
  • Emily Edelman, MS, CGC, Associate Director, Clinical and Continuing Education, The Jackson Laboratory (Author)
  • Abdallah Elias, MD, Department of Medical Genetics, Shodair Children's Hospital (Content Reviewer)
  • Marilyn J. Heine, MD, Hematologist/Oncologists, Regional Hematology Oncology Associates (Content Consultant)
  • Therese Ingram Nissen, MA, Senior Instructional Designer/Technologist, The Jackson Laboratory (Author)
  • Katie Johansen Taber, PhD, Principal Policy Analyst, Science and Biotechnology, AMA (Author)
  • Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO, New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants (Content Consultant)
  • Laura Nicholson, MD, Co-Director of Education, Scripps Translational Science Institute (Author)
  • James O'Leary, MBA, Chief innovation Officer, Genetic Alliance (Content Reviewer)
  • Kate Reed, MPH, ScM, CGC, Director, Clinical and Continuing Education, The Jackson Laboratory (Author)
  • Suzanna Schott, ScM, CGC, Medical Writer, The Jackson Laboratory (Author)

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Unless otherwise noted, the program planners and faculty do not have a financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organizations that could be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest in the context of the subject of this course.
The following disclosures are reported that could be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest in the education program:
The following disclosures are provided:

  • Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO of Innovative Oncology Business Solutions, and CEO or New Mexico Hematology Oncology Consultants Ltd
  • Jeanette McCarthy, PhD, MPH, Consultant to Big Science Media, Omicia, and Precision Medicine Advisors
  • Suzanna Schott, ScM, CGC, Stockholder of Merck, Amgen, and Teva
  • Janet K. Williams, PhD, RN, FAAN, Stockholder of Pfizer

No other planners or faculty have relevant financial relationships to disclose.
In their roles as planners, Dr. McCarthy, Dr. Williams, Dr. McAneny and Suzanna Schott recused themselves from all deliberations relating to content related to the commercial entities with which they have a financial interest and will not be responsible for reviewing for bias the presentation of any faculty who share the same financial interests. All educational material has been peer-reviewed by external reviewers to assess for bias.
References

Bardia A et al. Metastatic Breast Cancer With ESR1 Mutation: Clinical Management Considerations From the Molecular and Precision Medicine (MAP) Tumor Board at Massachusetts General HospitalThe Oncologist. 2016;21:1035–1040.

Gray PN et al. Not All Next Generation Sequencing Diagnostics are Created Equal: Understanding the Nuances of Solid Tumor Assay Design for Somatic Mutation Detection. Cancers (Basel). 2015. 7(3): 1313–1332.

Hegde M et al. Reporting incidental findings in genomic scale clinical sequencing: a clinical laboratory perspective: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn. 2015. 17: 107–117

Hofstatter EW, Bale AE. The Promise and Pitfalls of Genomics-Driven Cancer MedicineAmerican Medical Association Journal of Ethics. 2013. 15(8): 681-686.

Jones S et al. Personalized genomic analyses for cancer mutation discovery and interpretation. Sci Transl Med. 2015. 7(283):283ra53.

Kalia SS et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsGenet Med. 2017. 19(2):249-255.

Le Tourneau C et al. Treatment Algorithms Based on Tumor Molecular Profiling: The Essence of Precision Medicine TrialsJNCI. 2016. 108(4).

Li MM et al. Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in CancerJournal of Molecular Diagnostics. 2017. 19(1):4-23.

National Comprehensive Care Network Guidelines. Colon Cancer. Version 1.2017. 11/23/16.

Raymond VM et al. Germline Findings in Tumor-Only Sequencing: Points to Consider for Clinicians and Laboratories. JNCI. 2016. 108 (4)

Schrader KA et al. Germline Variants in Targeted Tumor Sequencing Using Matched Normal DNAJAMA Oncol. 2016 Jan;2(1):104-11.

Sholl LM et al. Institutional implementation of clinical tumor profiling on an unselected cancer populationJCI Insight. 2016. 1(19):e87062.

Tafe LJ et al. Implementation of a Molecular Tumor Board: The Impact on Treatment Decisions for 35 Patients Evaluated at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical CenterThe Oncologist. 2015. 20:1011

Hardware/software Requirements
Audio speakers or headphones
Screen resolution of 800X600 or higher
Adobe Reader 5.0 or higher 
As of June 4, 2016, we support the following versions of Flash and popular web browsers:

Operating Systems

  • Windows 7 and newer
  • Mac OSX 10.6 and newer
  • Linux - chromeOS

Mobile Operating System Native App Support

  • iOS 7 and newer
  • Android 4.2 and newer
Should you have questions regarding the content of the activity or if you need technical support, please email Clinical and Continuing Education at the Jackson Laboratory.