Amy L Pasternak

Dr. Amy L Pasternak

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

10Years (2017-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 March 2022 in JCO Oncology Practice
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KKKyoin Koo
Kyoin Koo
APAmy L Pasternak
Amy L Pasternak
NHN. Lynn Henry
N. Lynn Henry
VSVaibhav Sahai
Vaibhav Sahai
DHDaniel Hertz
Daniel Hertz
PURPOSE: Patients who carry reduced-activity DPYD polymorphisms have increased fluoropyrimidine (FP) toxicity risk. Although pretreatment DPYD testing is recommended throughout most of Europe, it is not recommended in the United States, and adoption has been limited. The objective of this survey was to describe the current practice in the United States regarding pretreatment DPYD testing and understand the factors deterring oncologists from ordering testing. METHODS: Survey invitations were e-mailed to 325 medical oncologists practicing in the United States who are members of the SWOG Cancer Research Network Gastrointestinal Cancer, Breast Cancer, or Early Therapeutics Committees. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate survey responses. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 59 (18.2%) US medical oncologists, of whom 98% strongly or somewhat agree that patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency have increased toxicity risk and 96% would modify FP dosing for a patient with known DPD deficiency. However, only 32% strongly or somewhat agree that pretreatment DPYD testing is useful to inform FP treatment, 20% have ever ordered pretreatment testing, and 3% order testing for at least 10% of their FP-treated patients. The most important factors that deter oncologists from ordering testing were low prevalence of DPD deficiency (54%) and lack of clinical practice guideline recommendations (48%). CONCLUSION: Clinical adoption of pretreatment DPYD testing is extremely limited in the United States. Utilization may be substantially increased by inclusion in the oncology clinical practice guideline recommendations, coverage through health insurance, and potentially education of medical oncologists regarding available treatment modification guidelines.

25 September 2021 in Clinical and Translational Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
STSony Tuteja
Sony Tuteja
RSRamzi Salloum
Ramzi Salloum
AEAmanda Leigh Elchynski
Amanda Leigh Elchynski
DSD. Max Smith
D. Max Smith
ERElizabeth Rowe
Elizabeth Rowe
FGfor the IGNITE Pharmacogenetics Working Group
for the IGNITE Pharmacogenetics Working Group
There is growing interest in utilizing pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing to guide antidepressant use, but there is lack of clarity on how to implement testing into clinical practice. We administered two surveys at 17 sites that had implemented or were in the process of implementing PGx testing for antidepressants. Survey 1 collected data on the process and logistics of testing. Survey 2 asked sites to rank the importance of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs using best‐worst scaling choice experiments. Of the 17 sites, 13 had implemented testing and four were in the planning stage. Thirteen offered testing in the outpatient setting, and nine in both outpatient/inpatient settings. PGx tests were mainly ordered by psychiatry (92%) and primary care (69%) providers. CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 were the most commonly tested genes. The justification for antidepressants selected for PGx guidance was based on Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines (94%) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 75.6%) guidance. Both institutional (53%) and commercial laboratories (53%) were used for testing. Sites varied on the methods for returning results to providers and patients. Sites were consistent in ranking CFIR constructs and identified patient needs/resources, leadership engagement, intervention knowledge/beliefs, evidence strength and quality, and the identification of champions as most important for implementation. Sites deployed similar implementation strategies and measured similar outcomes. The process of implementing PGx testing to guide antidepressant therapy varied across sites, but key drivers for successful implementation were similar and may help guide other institutions interested in providing PGx‐guided pharmacotherapy for antidepressant management.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APAmy L Pasternak
Amy L Pasternak
KWKristen Ward
Kristen Ward
MAMohammad Ateya
Mohammad Ateya
HCHae Mi Choe
Hae Mi Choe
ATAmy Thompson
Amy Thompson
VEVicki Ellingrod
Vicki Ellingrod
Multiple groups have described strategies for clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics (PGx) that often include internal laboratory tests that are specifically developed for their implementation needs. However, many institutions are not able to follow this practice and instead must utilize external laboratories to obtain PGx testing results. As each external laboratory might have different ordering and reporting workflows, consistent reporting and storing of PGx results within the medical record can be a challenge. This might result in patient safety concerns as important PGx information might not be easily identifiable at the point of current or future prescribing. Herein, we describe initial PGx clinical implementation efforts at a large academic medical center, focusing on optimizing three different test ordering workflows and two distinct result reporting strategies. From this, we identified common issues such as variable reporting location and structure of PGx results, as well as duplicate PGx testing. We identified several opportunities to optimize our current processes, including—(1) PGx laboratory stewardship, (2) increasing visibility of PGx tests, and (3) clinician and patient education. Key to the success was the importance of engaging clinician, informatics, and pathology stakeholders, as we developed interventions to improve our PGX implementation processes.

9 April 2018 in Pharmacogenomics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
APAmy L Pasternak
Amy L Pasternak
LZLu Zhang
Lu Zhang
DHDaniel Hertz
Daniel Hertz
Tacrolimus is prescribed to the majority of transplant recipients to prevent graft rejection, and although patients are maintained on oral administration, nonoral routes of administration are frequently used in the initial post-transplant period. CYP3A5 genotype is an established predictor of oral tacrolimus dose requirements, and clinical guideline recommendations exist for CYP3A5-guided dose selection. However, the association between CYP3A5 and nonoral tacrolimus administration is currently poorly understood, and differs from the oral tacrolimus relationship. In addition to CYP3A5, other pharmacogenes associated with CYP3A activity, including CYP3A4, CYP3A7 and POR have also been identified as predictors of tacrolimus exposure. This review will describe the current understanding of the relationship between these pharmacogenes and tacrolimus pharmacokinetics after oral and nonoral administration.

15 June 2021 in Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ALAbbie D. Leino
Abbie D. Leino
JPJeong M. Park
Jeong M. Park
APAmy L Pasternak
Amy L Pasternak

7 January 2021 in Pharmacogenomics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FSFaisal Shakeel
Faisal Shakeel
FFFang Fang
Fang Fang
JKJung Won Kwon
Jung Won Kwon
KKKyoin Koo
Kyoin Koo
APAmy L Pasternak
Amy L Pasternak
DHDaniel Hertz
Daniel Hertz
Aim: To evaluate toxicity risk in carriers of four DPYD variants using an institutional genetic repository. Materials & methods: Of over 65,000 patients in the repository, 582 were evaluated for th... Lay abstract Cancer patients who inherit genetic variants in the DPD enzyme (DPYD) are at higher risk of toxicity when administered fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. The objective of our study was to ...