ArticleCancer2017
Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.
Article in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors Associated With Implementation of Biomarker Testing and Strategies to Improve Its Clinical Uptake in Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using Theoretical Domains Framework.JCO precision oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating Patient Preferences for Clinical Trial Endpoints in Early-Stage Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Biomarker recall and understanding among people living with metastatic breast cancer - results from an international patient survey.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Understanding communication between patients and healthcare professionals regarding comprehensive biomarker testing in precision oncology: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Understanding Immunotherapy Terminology: An Analysis of Provider-Patient Conversations.Immunomedicine · 2021Article
- Physician Communication and Patient Understanding of Molecular Testing Terminology.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Patients' and Oncologists' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Tumor Multigene Next-Generation Sequencing: A Narrative Review.The oncologist · 2021Review
- Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results.Patient education and counseling · 2021Article
- How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Article
- Participant Attitudes Toward an Intensive Trial of Multiple Biopsies, Multidimensional Molecular Analysis, and Reporting of Results in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.JCO precision oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMolecular testing to inform treatment and clinical trial choices is now the standard of care for several types of cancer. However, no established guidelines exist for the type of information physicians should cover during discussions with the patient about the test or its results. The objectives of this study were to identify physician and patient preferences regarding information and who should communicate this information and how to inform guidelines for these conversations.
methodsPhysicians and patients who participated in discussions regarding molecular testing were asked to choose 8 topics of most relevance out of a list of 18. The McNemar test was used to determine their top preferences. Patients were asked to identify what information they wanted to receive and who should inform them, and physicians were asked to identify the best aid to communication.
resultsSixty-six patients identified 12 preferred topics: the benefits of testing (88%), how testing determines treatment (88%), implications for family (71%), whether a test indicates the seriousness of disease (68%), purpose of the test (64%), incidental findings (56%), explanation of cancer genetics (53%), how the test is done (46%), limitations (44%), explanation of biomarker (42%), risks (42%), and uninformative results (38%). Physicians added cost (59%). Patients preferred receiving information about molecular testing from their nurse or physician (85%), and physicians preferred using a pamphlet (67%) to augment communication.
conclusionsThe topics identified as important to discuss can inform future guidelines and can contribute to effective communication regarding molecular testing. Cancer 2017;123:1610-1616. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.