ArticleJCO precision oncology2020
Oncologist Confidence in Genomic Testing and Implications for Using Multimarker Tumor Panel Tests in Practice.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physicians' Perspectives on Access to Innovative Oncology Therapies: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Bulgaria.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Building a genomics-capable cancer workforce: a competency-based framework for education and training in precision oncology.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Experiences accessing and receiving tumour genetic profiling in Victoria: a consumer-led cross-sectional survey study.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Early liquid biopsy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: insights from the LIBELULE trial.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Preparedness for working with genomic medicine among Swedish non-genetics physicians - a nation-wide survey study.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Barriers To Genetic Testing Adoption in Oncology: A Cross-Sectional Survey from Pakistan.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Germline Findings From Tumor-Only Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the RATIONAL Study: A Missed Opportunity?JCO precision oncology · 2025Observational
- Emerging molecular testing paradigms in non-small cell lung cancer management-current perspectives and recommendations.The oncologist · 2025Review
- Editorial: Clinical implementation of precision oncology data to direct individualized and immunotherapy-based treatment strategies.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Article
- Socioeconomic disparities and the genomic landscape of gastric cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Preparing for the unexpected: Recommendations for returning secondary findings in late-stage cancer care.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Protocol to evaluate sequential electronic health record-based strategies to increase genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk across diverse patient populations in gynecology practices.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Opportunities and challenges of 5G network technology toward precision medicine.Clinical and translational science · 2023Review
- Integrating Early-Stage Drug Development with Clinical Networks; Challenges and Opportunities: The City of Hope Developing Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Assessing Oncologists' Attitudes Concerning Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Stage IV Lung Adenocarcinoma in Brazil.JTO clinical and research reports · 2022Article
- Clinicians' Perceptions towards Precision Medicine Tools for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification in South Africa.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- PRECISION: the Belgian molecular profiling program of metastatic cancer for clinical decision and treatment assignment.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Genomic sequencing in oncology: Considerations for integration in routine cancer care.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe evolution of precision oncology increasingly requires oncologists to incorporate genomic testing into practice. Yet, providers' confidence with genomic testing is poorly documented. This article describes medical oncologists' confidence with genomic testing and the association between genomic confidence and test use.
methodsWe used data from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment to characterize oncologists' confidence with genomic testing. Genomic confidence was examined separately by type of test user: next-generation sequencing (NGS) only, gene expression (GE) only, both NGS and GE, or nonuser. Predictors of genomic confidence were examined with multinomial logistic regression. The association between genomic confidence and test use was examined with multivariable linear regression.
resultsMore than 75% of genomic test users were either moderately or very confident about using results from multimarker tumor panel tests to guide patient care. Confidence with using multimarker tumor panel tests was highest among both NGS and GE test users, with 60.1% very confident in using test results, and lowest among NGS-only test users, with 38.2% very confident in using test results. Oncologists were most confident in using single-gene tests and least confident in using whole-genome or -exome sequencing to guide patient care. Genomic confidence was positively associated with self-reported test use. In adjusted models, training in genomics, larger patient volume, and treating patients with solid tumors predicted higher genomic confidence. Onsite pathology services and receipt of electronic medical record alerts for genomic testing predicted lower genomic confidence.
conclusionOncologists' confidence varies by testing platform, patient volume, genomic training, and practice infrastructure. Research is needed to identify modifiable factors that can be targeted to enhance provider confidence with genomic testing.
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.