ArticleJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology2024
Sharing Genomic Tumor Sequencing Results With Patients: Experiences of Advanced Practice Oncology Providers.
Article in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of Advanced Practitioner Oncogenomic Training and Proficiency Before and After the Intervention of an Oncogenomic Module.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with cancer routinely undergo genomic tumor sequencing, a component of molecular profiling (MP), to better characterize their cancer and identify potential targetable alterations. Targeted treatments potentially confer higher response rates and better efficacy. With increasing complexity, patients may require detailed explanations of MP results. Patient understanding of MP results increases the likelihood that eligible patients receive targeted treatment. Advanced practice providers (APPs), defined as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists, frequently review and discuss MP results with patients. Purpose: The aim of this study is to understand APP experiences discussing MP results with adult cancer patients. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted through virtual semi-structured interviews with APPs recruited via study invitation shared through the Advanced Practitioner Society for Hematology and Oncology (APSHO). Eligibility criteria included APPs with > 1 year of oncology experience and involvement in discussing MP results. Data were analyzed utilizing a constant comparative analysis and coded in three stages: open, axial, and selective. Results: Thirteen participants were enrolled from across the United States. Participants discussed learning to understand and explain MP findings primarily through on-the-job experiences. Barriers to patient education were also described. Initially coded participant statements (open codes) produced six themes (axial codes). Conclusions: With MP now standard practice in oncology, APPs frequently discuss these results with patients. This study highlights that additional and continuing education related to MP is needed in communicating complex results. Patient educational tools, specific to patients' MP findings and tailored to their preferences and literacy levels, are critically needed.
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.