Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24403261›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2013

Oncologists' attitudes toward KRAS testing: a multisite study.

Julie N Harris, Petra Liljestrand, Gwen L Alexander, Katrina A B Goddard, Tia Kauffman, Tatjana Kolevska, Catherine McCarty, Suzanne O'Neill, Pamala Pawloski, Alanna Rahm and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Genomic Profiling forJCO precision oncology · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Heliyon · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Julie N HarrisDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California.
Petra Liljestrand
Gwen L Alexander
Katrina A B Goddard
Tia Kauffman
Tatjana Kolevska
Catherine McCarty
Suzanne O'Neill
Pamala Pawloski
Alanna Rahm
Andrew Williams
Carol P Somkin
Kaiser Permanente · USKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USEssentia Health · USHealthPartners · USHenry Ford Health System · USKaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center · USVince Lombardi Cancer Clinic · US

Funding

Comparative effectiveness in genomic & personalized medicine for colon cancerUC2CA148471 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GODDARD, KATRINA A., KUSHI, LAWRENCE H · 2010 to 2010
$2.0M
Center for Transdisciplinary ELSI Research in Translational GenomicsP20HG007243 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI HARRIS-WAI, JULIE NOEL, KOENIG, BARBARA A. · 2013 to 2016
$958k
NCI NIH HHS 5UC2CA148471NCI NIH HHS UC2 CA148471NHGRI NIH HHS P20 HG007243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent discoveries promise increasingly to help oncologists individually tailor anticancer therapy to their patients' molecular tumor characteristics. One such promising molecular diagnostic is Kirsten ras (KRAS) tumor mutation testing for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. In the current study, we examined how and why physicians adopt KRAS testing and how they subsequently utilize the information when discussing treatment strategies with patients. We conducted 34 semi-structured in-person or telephone interviews with oncologists from seven different health plans. Each interview was audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using qualitative research methods. Information and salient themes relating to the research questions were summarized for each interview. All of the oncologists in this study reported using the KRAS test at the time of the interview. Most appeared to have adopted the test rapidly, within 6 months of the publication of National Clinical Guidelines. Oncologists chose to administer the test at various time points, although the majority ordered the test at the time their patient was diagnosed with mCRC. While oncologists expressed a range of opinions about the KRAS test, there was a general consensus that the test was useful and provided benefits to mCRC patients. The rapid adoption and enthusiasm for KRAS suggests that these types of tests may be filling an important informational need for oncologists when making treatment decisions. Future research should focus on the informational needs of patients around this test and whether patients feel informed or confident with their physicians' use of these tests to determine treatment access.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelColorectal NeoplasmsCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleMedical OncologyMutationPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansPrecision MedicineProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras ProteinsKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras ProteinsCancer geneticscolorectal cancerpsychosocial studies

Identifiers

PMID24403261
PMCPMC3892392
OpenAlexW2016161217

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.