Skip To Content
Precision Medicine for Your Practice: Interpreting Results from Somatic Cancer Panels – CNE is a Course

Precision Medicine for Your Practice: Interpreting Results from Somatic Cancer Panels – CNE

Self-paced
0.5 credits

Enroll

Full course description

About this Course

Precision Medicine for Your Practice is a series of short (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

Activity Overview:

Precision Medicine for Your Practice: Interpreting Results from Somatic Cancer Panels
Release Date: 
June 06, 2017
Expiration Date: September 21, 2020

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
  • Therese Ingram Nissen, MA, The Jackson Laboratory
  • Sean McConnell, PhD, American Medical Association
  • Laura Nicholson, MD, PhD, Scripps Translational Science Institute 
  • Kate Reed, MPH, ScM, CGC, The Jackson Laboratory
  • Linda Steinmark, MS, LGC, The Jackson Laboratory 
  • Janet K. Williams, PhD, RN, FAAN, University of Iowa
Abdallah Elias, Jeanette McCarthy, Katherine Johansen Taber, James O’Leary, and Suzanna Schott were involved in planning a previous version of this program.

Faculty and Authors

    • Emily Edelman, MS, CGC, The Jackson Laboratory
    • Therese Ingram Nissen, MA, The Jackson Laboratory
    • Katie Johansen Taber, PhD, Counsyl
    • Laura Nicholson, MD, PhD, Scripps Translational Science Institute
    • Kate Reed, MPH, ScM, CGC, The Jackson Laboratory
    • Suzanna Schott, ScM, CGC, The Jackson Laboratory

      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:

      Janet K. Williams, PhD, RN, FAAN, stockholder of Pfizer
      Katie Johansen Taber, PhD, Counsyl 

      In her role as a planner, Dr. Williams recused herself from all deliberations relating to content related to the commercial entities with which she has a financial interest and is not responsible for reviewing for bias any related content. All educational material has been peer-reviewed by external reviewers to assess for bias.

      In her role as a content author, Dr. Johansen Taber completed these contributions prior to her employment at Counsyl. This work has also 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


      Should you have questions regarding the content of the activity, please email Kate Reed or call 207.288.6971.
      Should you have technical questions, please email 
      Therese Ingram.

       Disclaimer 
      All information in Precision Medicine for Your Practice is provided for educational purposes only. This information is not a substitute for clinical guidance or the consultation of a medical professional. Always seek the advice of a qualified health professional with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read in Precision Medicine for Your Practice. Reliance on any information in Precision Medicine for Your Practice is solely at your own risk. The Jackson Laboratory does not endorse or recommend any specific procedures, tests, products, services, health professionals or other information that may be found in Precision Medicine for Your Practice.





      Sign up for this course today!

      Enroll