Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33183308›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2020

Factors influencing cancer genetic somatic mutation test ordering by cancer physician.

Anastassia Demeshko, David J Pennisi, Sushil Narayan, Stacy W Gray, Matthew A Brown, Aideen M McInerney-Leo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Primary care provider practices, attitudes, and confidence with hereditary cancer risk assessment and testing: A mixed methods study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Anastassia DemeshkoThe Dermatology Research Group, University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent St, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
David J PennisiTranslational Genomics Group, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent St, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Sushil NarayanTranslational Genomics Group, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent St, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Stacy W GrayDepartment of Population Science, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Matthew A BrownGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Aideen M McInerney-LeoThe Dermatology Research Group, University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent St, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia. a.mcinerney@uq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0059-5732
Translational Research Institute · AUCity of Hope · USKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical whole exome sequencing was introduced in an Australian centre in 2017, as an alternative to Sanger sequencing. We aimed to identify predictors of cancer physicians' somatic mutation test ordering behaviour.

methodsA validated instrument assessed somatic mutation test ordering, genomic confidence, perceived utility of tumour molecular profiling, and percent of patients eligible for targeted therapy. A cash incentive was included in 189/244 questionnaires which were mailed to all Queensland cancer specialists in November 2018.

results110 participated (response rate 45%); 54.7% oncologists, and the remainder were surgeons, haematologists and pulmonologists. Oncologists were more likely to respond (p = 0.008), and cash incentive improved the response rate (p < 0.001). 67/102 (65.7%) of physicians ordered ≥ 5 somatic mutation tests annually. Oncologists saw 86.75 unique patients monthly and ordered 2.33 somatic mutation tests (2.2%). An average of 51/110 (46.1%) reported having little/no genomic confidence. Logistic regression identified two significant predictors of somatic mutation test ordering: being an oncologist (OR 3.557, CI 1.338-9.456; p = 0.011) and having greater confidence in interpreting somatic results (OR 5.926, CI 2.230-15.74; p < 0.0001).

conclusionsConsistent with previous studies, the majority of cancer physicians ordered somatic mutation tests. However, the percentage of patients on whom tests were ordered was low. Almost half respondents reported low genomic confidence. Somatic mutation test ordering was higher amongst oncologists and those with increased confidence in interpreting somatic variants. It is unclear whether genomically confident individuals ordered more tests or whether ordering more tests increased genomic confidence. Educational interventions could improve confidence and enhance test ordering behaviour.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeoplasmsAustraliaGenomicsHumansMutationPhysiciansAttitudesCancer physiciansConfidenceGenomicOrderingSomatic

Identifiers

PMID33183308
PMCPMC7663861
OpenAlexW3099858849

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.