Pharmacogenomic clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to help overcome some of the barriers for translating pharmacogenomic knowledge into clinical routine. Before developing a prototype it is crucial for developers to know which pharmacogenomic CDSS features and user-system interactions have yet been developed, implemented and tested in previous pharmacogenomic CDSS efforts and if they have been successfully applied. We address this issue by providing an overview of the designs of user-system interactions of recently developed pharmacogenomic CDSS. We searched PubMed for pharmacogenomic CDSS published between January 1, 2012 and November 15, 2016. Thirty-two out of 118 identified articles were summarized and included in the final analysis. We then compared the designs of user-system interactions of the 20 pharmacogenomic CDSS we had identified. Alerts are the most widespread tools for physician-system interactions, but need to be implemented carefully to prevent alert fatigue and avoid liabilities. Pharmacogenomic test results and override reasons stored in the local EHR might help communicate pharmacogenomic information to other internal care providers. Integrating patients into user-system interactions through patient letters and online portals might be crucial for transferring pharmacogenomic data to external health care providers. Inbox messages inform physicians about new pharmacogenomic test results and enable them to request pharmacogenomic consultations. Search engines enable physicians to compare medical treatment options based on a patient’s genotype. Within the last 5 years, several pharmacogenomic CDSS have been developed. However, most of the included articles are solely describing prototypes of pharmacogenomic CDSS rather than evaluating them. To support the development of prototypes further evaluation efforts will be necessary. In the future, pharmacogenomic CDSS will likely include prediction models to identify patients who are suitable for preemptive genotyping.

Clinicians in molecular tumor boards (MTB) are confronted with a growing amount of genetic high-throughput sequencing data. Today, at German university hospitals, these data are usually handled in complex spreadsheets from which clinicians have to obtain the necessary information. The aim of this work was to gather a comprehensive list of requirements to be met by cBioPortal to support processes in MTBs according to clinical needs. Therefore, oncology experts at nine German university hospitals were surveyed in two rounds of interviews. To generate an interview guideline a scoping review was conducted. For visual support in the second round, screenshot mockups illustrating the requirements from the first round were created. Requirements that cBioPortal already meets were skipped during the second round. In the end, 24 requirements with sometimes several conceivable options were identified and 54 screenshot mockups were created. Some of the identified requirements have already been suggested to the community by other users or are currently being implemented in cBioPortal. This shows, that the results are in line with the needs expressed by various disciplines. According to our findings, cBioPortal has the potential to significantly improve the processes and analyses of an MTB after the implementation of the identified requirements.

Background: German university hospitals have started to establish molecular tumor boards in order to enable physicians to make molecular-guided decisions.

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the physicians’ attitude, their knowledge and their experience in pharmacogenomic clinical decision support in German hospitals. Materials & methods: We conducted an online survey to address physicians of 13 different medical specialties across eight German university hospitals. In total, 564 returned questionnaires were analyzed. Results: The remaining knowledge gap, the uncertainty of test reimbursement and the physicians’ lack of awareness of existing pharmacogenomic clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are the major barriers for implementing pharmacogenomic CDSS into German hospitals. Furthermore, pharmacogenomic CDSS are most effective in the form of real-time decision support for internists. Conclusion: Physicians in German hospitals require additional education of both genetics and pharmacogenomics. They need to be provided with access to relevant pharmacogenomic CDSS.

Background: Pharmacogenomic Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are considered to be the most feasible tool for adopting pharmacogenomic testing into clinical routine.