Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32923869›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2020

Oncologist Confidence in Genomic Testing and Implications for Using Multimarker Tumor Panel Tests in Practice.

Janet S de Moor, Stacy W Gray, Sandra A Mitchell, Carrie N Klabunde, Andrew N Freedman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2026
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janet S de MoorDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
Stacy W GrayDepartment of Population Sciences and Medical Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA.
Sandra A MitchellDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
Carrie N KlabundeOffice of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Andrew N FreedmanDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
National Cancer Institute · USCity of Hope · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID32923869
PMCPMC7446310
OpenAlexW3035565775

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.