Abstract
Purpose
Individuals with cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) inherit elevated cancer risks. Medical supply gaps for people at risk of CPS cause insufficient outreach and miss potential benefits of individualized care strategies. Increased awareness of CPS and progress in the eHealth sector are untapped sources of health care improvement for affected individuals.
Methods and results
This study addressed German–speaking medical students with an online questionnaire in respect to their knowledge of CPS, their medical education, and perspectives. The study population (n = 404) reported interest in and knowledge of CPS, supported by a satisfactory and sustainable education for their prospective patient care. The next generation of doctors would implement eHealth to improve medical services. Skepticism about digitization was claimed by students. They were especially concerned about deterioration in the physician–patient relationship, data abuse, dependence on technology, and incorrect diagnoses.
Conclusion
Due to increasing diagnosing of CPS and deeper knowledge, this topic is essential for the curriculum in medical schools. In particular, care providers need know-how on identifying patients at risk for a CPS, certain diagnostic and therapeutic steps, surveillance and prophylactic strategies to improve patients’ outcomes. Education in medical school as well as implemented eHealth seems to have potential to meet this demand in an upcoming era of personalized medicine.
What does this study add to the clinical work.
Medical teaching on cancer predisposition syndromes should be expanded to improve knowledge and individualized and personalized healthcare.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Medical teaching on cancer predisposition syndromes should be expanded to improve knowledge and individualized and personalized healthcare. |
Introduction
Individuals with cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) inherit elevated cancer risks and their care demands specific medical strategies. In times of increasingly personalized medicine, the genome of patients plays an ever-increasing role in the choice of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies [1, 2]. For several CPS, complex surveillance has been established. In terms of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS), one of the most penetrant CPS, adherent behavior concerning surveillance can achieve an overall survival benefit [2,3,4,5], although broad clinical implementation worldwide is lacking, yet. Specific breast cancer surveillance strategies including breast MRI that were successfully implemented within the German consortium for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer led to benefits for high-risk BRCA carriers [6]. Therapeutically, specific treatments are required for CPS carriers to avoid over- and undertreatment or even toxic regimens [7, 8]. More precise strategies, e.g., PARP inhibitors, for carriers of (likely) pathogenic somatic or germline BRCA, have been approved and require early identification of people who could potentially benefit.
On the other hand, the rapid gain in knowledge on specific CPS variants demands fast, evidence-based translation into clinical practice [9]. Knowledge transfer, outstanding research communication, and continuous education for care providers besides specific CPS clinics are crucial for outreach and clinical implementation.
Today, an underachievement of clinical translation is noted in the literature [10]. Medical supply gaps with a lack of identified individuals at risk for a CPS cause insufficient outreach with missed potential benefits from genetic testing and cancer preventive or individualized care strategies [10,11,12]. Additionally, affected individuals had noted physicians’ lack of CPS knowledge and often felt like an educator rather than a patient [13].
The digital eHealth sector has become an integral part of the medical field with untapped potential to improve care on even more patient-centric level [14]. During the COVID pandemic, it proved to be a safer route to reach patients, especially for those who otherwise would have missed medical contact [15]. However, its future implementation and usage will be driven by medical professionals’ as well as patients´ uptake. Its potential for CPS carriers and the extent of supply gaps has not yet been investigated.
Here, we questioned the future generation of physicians—German-speaking medical students—on their knowledge about CPS and eHealth as well as their strategies for gaining knowledge. The captured status quo shall guide aspects of medical education and patient care along modern supply structures.
Methods
Survey design
The online survey was designed in an interactive manner by physicians from different medical specialties and universities in Germany. The design resulted in a structured format: single-, multiple-choice, and free-text questions were included with answer types assigned to nominal, ordinal, and ratio scales. In total, 41 items were captured: (a) personal data as well as current educational status (n = 19), (b) knowledge and attitude toward CPS (n = 11), and (c) attitudes towards eHealth and the digitalization of medicine in general and in relation to CPS and personalized medicine (n = 11). (Supplementary Files) There was no time limit in which the questions had to be answered. Participation was possible with any device with internet access to Survey Monkey. All participants provided online consent prior to study start as access to the survey was not given without consent. The study was approved by the ethical committee of the Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (number 10015_BO_K_2021).
Study population
Study participants were recruited via lectures and posters, student mailing lists, university newsletters, and social media channels. German-speaking medical students ≥ 18 years old at any level of education were eligible to participate in this anonymous online survey using Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com) between October and December 2021.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed with Microsoft Excel Professional Plus 2019. The quantitative data were evaluated using descriptive analyses (frequencies and mean values). Percentages relate to the number of participants who answered the relevant question. Empirical distributions were determined by absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables. The results are to be considered descriptive without confirmatory value because all participants included met the inclusion criteria.
Results
Study cohort, study experiences, and future perspectives
The study cohort comprised 404 students: 293 females (77.51%), 84 males (22.22%), and 1 diverse gender (0.26%). The majority studied in Germany (n = 351, 92.86%; Switzerland n = 15, 3.97%, 7 in Austria: n = 7, 1.85%, 5 in Hungary: 1.32%). The average participant was aged 24 (median; range 18–41) and currently in a clinical semester (n = 234, 61.91%; 89 students attended a preclinical semester (23.55%) and 55 practical year (14.55%)). Half of the study population had experienced clinical training (n = 209, 57.10%) mostly in the mandatory general medicine internship (n = 152, 73.08%), followed by internal medicine (n = 90, 43.27%), surgery (n = 59, 28.37%), anesthesiology (n = 46, 22.12%), gynecology or pediatrics (each n = 39, 18.75%).
Overall satisfaction with their training (n = 341, 92.16%) and good preparation for their future medical career (n = 288, 77.84%) was reported. Teaching formats such as bedside teaching (n = 283, 76.49%), seminars (n = 241, 65.14%), skills labs (n = 240, 64.86%), and simulator training (n = 192, 51.89%) supported their assessment and ranked most advantageous.
Research involvement was rather low (no research: n = 240, 64.86% vs research: n = 130), but some were focusing on their doctoral thesis (n = 108, 26.73%) or employment as a student assistant within a research group (n = 40, 9.9%). Prospectively, half the study population intended to complete a doctoral thesis along with medical school (n = 185, 50.55%). Future preferences for residency were mainly missing. Those with a preference favored internal medicine at a university hospital (n = 114, 30.16%) or private practice (n = 80, 21.16%), followed by surgery, pediatrics and gynecology/obstetrics. A clinician scientist career (n = 140, 38.25%) was an option for a third after medical school.
Students’ knowledge on cancer predisposition syndromes
Most study participants (n = 279, 77.07%) had not met a person with CPS throughout their career and rated their theoretical knowledge of CPSs as typical to that of their fellow students (n = 226, 69.97%). The most common CPSs of children or adults (BRCA, Li-Fraumeni-syndrome, multiple endocrine neoplasia, and Lynch syndrome) were the best known CPSs (Fig. 1); however, there was high variability among the study participants. Figure 2 shows the percentage of participants who reported very good or good knowledge of the corresponding CPS.
A majority of the study participants (n = 240, 74.31%) claimed awareness about CPS-specific surveillance programs (n = 240, 74.31%) and therapeutic recommendations (n = 231, 71.51%). However, more than half (n = 192, 59.44%) were not familiar that some standard therapies and diagnostics for people with CPS can be harmful. Interestingly, most students claimed to be interested in caring for cancer patients (n = 286, 79%) and people with CPS (n = 281, 77.63%), and did agree that knowledge of CPS is important to very important (n = 279, 86.37%) for their professional future. They stated at least a high demand for knowledge in this regard (n = 219, 67.80%). Many (n = 294, 91.02%) consider personalized medicine to be a useful addition to standard therapy and have the impression that medicine is becoming more and more complex (n = 317, 98.17%).
eHealth
eHealth and its implementation in patient care revealed that several apps were already widely used. “Amboss”, a learning and reference app and website very frequently used for studies prior to the final exam, was known by 82 students (33.12%) and used by 75 (18.56%). Thirty-eight (9.40%) students were familiar with a COVID app and 21 (5.19%) use such an app. The corresponding preinstalled apps from smartphone manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung were grouped under “Health” and were known by 35 students (8.66%) and 21 (5.19%) used it. Furthermore, some study participants (n = 28, 6.93%) named an app offered by a health insurance company and 15 (3.71%) worked with it. 116 (28.71%) students didn’t know any medical apps, and 143 (35.40%) did not use a single medical app. Participants wanted the services noted in Fig. 3 for digital applications in patient care. Figure 4 shows the features rated most useful in a health app.
The potential improvement for CPS care and prevention by health apps was seen by the majority (n = 298, 97.07%) and would be recommended to patients by 294 students (95.77%).
Most of the students (n = 243, 79.15%) were of the opinion that the COVID pandemic has changed the way we deal with digitization in healthcare, with a great potential for the health care sector to improve. The students felt hopeful (n = 143, 48.64%) about the increasing digitization. Especially for data availability (n = 282, 95.92%), knowledge access (n = 277, 94.22%), data acquisition (n = 267, 90.82%), and quality (n = 247, 84.01%).
Skepticism (n = 138, 46.94%) about increasing digitization was shown by students who expressed concern about deterioration in the physician–patient relationship (n = 235, 79.93%), data abuse (n = 234, 79.59%), dependence on technology (n = 182, 61.90%), and incorrect diagnoses (n = 171, 58.16%).
Discussion
The German-speaking medical students reported an interest in and basic knowledge of CPS supported by a satisfactory and sustainable education for their prospective patient care. The next generation of doctors would implement eHealth with a potential to improve medical services, especially for people with CPS.
Consciousness and fundamental knowledge on genetics has become increasingly important for any physician—not only in oncology [16]. However, to date, studies on genetic testing and patient referral for testing have shown that even in multidisciplinary centers, not everyone with a medical indication receives genetic referral [17]. Reasons for this lack may be physician knowledge gaps [18] to identify eligible people. To meet this need, standardized questionnaires as established in pediatric oncology [19] or algorithms [20] should be integrated in every oncological workup. eHealth decision support tools might open options to improve the rate. Other possibilities are patient-derived approaches, i.e., such as itrunsinmyfamily.com, that enables lay people to check their personal CPS risk and consult specialists themselves.
Awareness and the variety of approaches, including patient-derived care, should be part of medical school curriculums as well as continuing medical education for visibility and patient´s acceptance. Knowledge of appropriate surveillance, prevention options, e.g. prophylactic surgery or medication, by all physicians can be crucial for people with CPS. CPS-related tumors require precise diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in order to avoid harm from current standards of care, such as radiation or X-ray-based diagnostics that can be a risk for life-threatening secondary malignancies [21]. Even surgical material can cause health problems; for example, textured implants were discussed along with breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. In women with LFS [22], it might increase cancer development and needs further investigation. Dedicated centers for people with CPS may be one possibility to improve precise care through individualized surveillance including diagnostic and therapy. However, limited resources [20] and long distance to the nearest genetic clinic contribute to a lack of clinical routine for people at risk of a CPS [23].
There is a need for better awareness for CPS, so far almost 60% of the study participants were not familiar with such syndromes. (Virtual) bedside teaching or the integration of affected individuals into seminars, as the two most popular teaching formats stated by our cohort, are options to fill this gap of personal experience and access needs of people with a rare disease. We gained an extremely positive experience with LFS carriers sharing their story in a seminar with medical students. This might be a promising teaching model for outpatient “bedside” teaching, besides the educational tools in clinical setting. Therefore, it might be helpful to include digital patient cases to gain awareness of CPS. Modern approaches with promising results aiming to improving knowledge about human papillomavirusamong medical and dental trainees in the USA included interactive, web-based genetics curriculums [18], or online educational intervention [24]. In addition to the e-format of teaching modules, our study participants also see great potential in the use of health apps for their future patients, including people with a CPS. Since our preliminary study showed that the acceptance or use of a health app is not very high for LFS carriers (under review), the students (but also physicians) should not only be taught how to strengthen the compliance of patients regarding an app. Rather, information and education on digitization should also be integrated into medical school. In contrast to ours and other studies, where maintaining a good doctor–patient relationship and data protection are seen as the greatest danger of eHealth [25], it has been shown that the targeted use of eTools can even improve doctor–patient communication [26]. Furthermore, eHealth may meet the need to reach areas without sufficient medical supply via televisits and remote patient monitoring [27] and so improve CPS patients´ frustration of limited access [28]. Although apps are in use, there is an option to increase the spread of medical apps among medical students. One way of improving this is the project “DiKoMed” at the Duisburg-Essen medical school, which accompanies the students throughout their studies and introduces them to suitable eHealth possibilities adapted to the respective semester (29).
Personalized medicine, which is based on (epi)-genetic analyses and will play an important role especially for people with CPS, includes predicting which patients will likely respond to specific cancer therapies while avoiding unnecessary, ineffective therapies. The outlook of personalized medicine illustrates the importance of genetic analysis for therapy, prophylaxis, surveillance, and aftercare needing further investigation. eHealth or apps as a therapy diary or monitoring may also be a part of future care, with a need for prospective studies specially to meet the pitfalls of complex individualized treatments. Furthermore, the promising results of molecular tumor boards open options for better care. However, this also entails a need for motivated future doctors in the driver’s seat to support findings with (clinical) research.
Data availability
Data available on request from the authors.
References
Horak P, Klink B, Heining C, Groschel S, Hutter B, Frohlich M et al (2017) Precision oncology based on omics data: The NCT Heidelberg experience. Int J Cancer 141(5):877–886
Gupta S, Provenzale D, Llor X, Halverson AL, Grady W, Chung DC et al (2019) NCCN Guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: colorectal, version 2.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17(9):1032–41
Kotsopoulos J (2018) BRCA mutations and breast cancer prevention. Cancers (Basel) 10(12):524
Villani A, Shore A, Wasserman JD, Stephens D, Kim RH, Druker H et al (2016) Biochemical and imaging surveillance in germline TP53 mutation carriers with Li-Fraumeni syndrome: 11 year follow-up of a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 17(9):1295–1305
Kratz CP, Achatz MI, Brugieres L, Frebourg T, Garber JE, Greer MC et al (2017) Cancer screening recommendations for individuals with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Clin Cancer Res 23(11):e38–e45
Bick U, Engel C, Krug B, Heindel W, Fallenberg EM, Rhiem K et al (2019) High-risk breast cancer surveillance with MRI: 10-year experience from the German consortium for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 175(1):217–228
Northcott PA, Robinson GW, Kratz CP, Mabbott DJ, Pomeroy SL, Clifford SC et al (2019) Medulloblastoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 5(1):11
Zimmer AS, Gillard M, Lipkowitz S, Lee JM (2018) Update on PARP inhibitors in breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 19(5):21
Winter G, Kirschner-Schwabe R, Groeneveld-Krentz S, Escherich G, Moricke A, von Stackelberg A et al (2021) Clinical and genetic characteristics of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Leukemia 35(5):1475–1479
Evers C, Fischer C, Dikow N, Schott S (2017) Familial breast cancer: Genetic counseling over time, including patients expectations and initiators considering the Angelina Jolie effect. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0177893
Ripperger T, Bielack SS, Borkhardt A, Brecht IB, Burkhardt B, Calaminus G et al (2017) Childhood cancer predisposition syndromes-A concise review and recommendations by the cancer predisposition working group of the society for pediatric oncology and hematology. Am J Med Genet A 173(4):1017–1037
Stuckey A, Febbraro T, Laprise J, Wilbur JS, Lopes V, Robison K (2016) Adherence patterns to national comprehensive cancer network guidelines for referral of women with breast cancer to genetics professionals. Am J Clin Oncol 39(4):363–367
Rippinger N, Fischer C, Haun MW, Rhiem K, Grill S, Kiechle M et al (2020) Cancer surveillance and distress among adult pathogenic TP53 germline variant carriers in Germany: a multicenter feasibility and acceptance survey. Cancer 126(17):4032–4041
Shaw T, McGregor D, Brunner M, Keep M, Janssen A, Barnet S (2017) What is eHealth (6)? Development of a conceptual model for ehealth: qualitative study with key informants. J Med Internet Res 19(10):e324
Bokolo AJ (2021) Exploring the adoption of telemedicine and virtual software for care of outpatients during and after COVID-19 pandemic. Ir J Med Sci 190(1):1–10
Schmidt A, Groh AM, Frick JS, Vehreschild MJGT, Ludwig KU (2022) Genetische prädisposition und variable infektionsverläufe genetic predisposition and the variable course of infectious diseases. Dtsch Arztebl Int 119:117–123. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0105
Alberty-Oller JJ, Weltz S, Santos A, Pisapati K, Ru M, Weltz C et al (2021) Adherence to NCCN guidelines for genetic testing in breast cancer patients: who are we missing? Ann Surg Oncol 28(1):281–286
Wilkes MS, Day FC, Fancher TL, McDermott H, Lehman E, Bell RA et al (2017) Increasing confidence and changing behaviors in primary care providers engaged in genetic counselling. BMC Med Educ 17(1):163
Schwermer M, Behnert A, Dorgeloh B, Ripperger T, Kratz CP (2021) Effective identification of cancer predisposition syndromes in children with cancer employing a questionnaire. Fam Cancer 20(4):257–262
Cullinan N, Villani A, Mourad S, Somers GR, Reichman L, van Engelen K et al (2020) An eHealth decision-support tool to prioritize referral practices for genetic evaluation of patients with Wilms tumor. Int J Cancer 146(4):1010–1017
Thariat J, Chevalier F, Orbach D, Ollivier L, Marcy PY, Corradini N et al (2021) Avoidance or adaptation of radiotherapy in patients with cancer with Li-Fraumeni and heritable TP53-related cancer syndromes. Lancet Oncol 22(12):e562–e574
Adlard J, Burton C, Turton P (2019) Increasing evidence for the association of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma and Li Fraumeni syndrome. Case Rep Genet 2019:5647940
Shur N, Atabaki SM, Kisling MS, Tabarani A, Williams C, Fraser JL et al (2021) Rapid deployment of a telemedicine care model for genetics and metabolism during COVID-19. Am J Med Genet A 185(1):68–72
Thanasuwat B, Leung SOA, Welch K, Duffey-Lind E, Pena N, Feldman S, Villa A (2023) Human papillomavirus (HPV) education and knowledge among medical and dental trainees. J Cancer Educ 38(3):971–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02215-2. (Epub 2022 Aug 25. PMID: 36002641; PMCID: PMC9402407)
Waschkau A, Flagel K, Goetz K, Steinhauser J (2020) Evaluation of attitudes towards telemedicine as a basis for successful implementation: a cross-sectional survey among postgraduate trainees in family medicine in Germany. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 156–157:75–81
Lindenberg-Scharf P, Steinger B, Koller M, Hofstädter A, Ortmann O, Kurz J, Sasse J, Klinkhammer-Schalke M (2021) Verbesserung der Lebensqualität von Patientinnen mit Brustkrebs in der stationären und ambulanten Regelversorgung: Nutzen des elektronischen Tools LPro zur Verbesserung der Arzt-Patienten-Kommunikation aus Patientensicht. Interdisziplinärer Kongress 2021 quality of cancer care. https://www.qocc.de/files/content/poster/poster-86-qocc-2021.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2022
Baldwin-Medsker A, Holland J, Rodriguez ES (2020) Access to care: using ehealth to limit location-based barriers for patients with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs 24(3):16–23
Doyle-Lindrud S (2020) State of ehealth in cancer care: review of the benefits and limitations of ehealth tools. Clin J Oncol Nurs 24(3):10–15
Hillienhof A (2022) Digitale hilfsmittel: uni duisburg-essen schult medizinstudierende. Dtsch Arztebl 119(10):A-450/B-366
Acknowledgements
JN was supported by the Faculty of Medicine Heidelberg in the form of the Rahel-Goitein-Strauss fellowship. SS has been supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Federal Ministry of education and research, BMBF (01GM1909D). Furthermore, we thank all participants and colleagues as Max Tischerl Bündnis Junger Ärzte for the input on eHealth, and Sven Meister for the input on digitalization among physicians, for supporting this study.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 01GM1909D, Sarah Schott, Medizinischen Fakultät Heidelberg, Universität Heidelberg, Rahel-Goitein-Strauss fellowship, Juliane Nees.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JN: project development, data collection and management, manuscript writing. FS: project development, data collection, manuscript editing. SS: project development, manuscript writing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nees, J., Struewe, F. & Schott, S. Medical students’ knowledge on cancer predisposition syndromes and attitude toward eHealth. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309, 1535–1541 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07266-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07266-4