Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24445286›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2014

Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine.

Michelle L McGowan, Richard A Settersten, Eric T Juengst, Jennifer R Fishman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urologic oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Digital Twins and Health Care: an Umbrella Review.Journal of medical systems · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Fighting Cancer around the World: A Framework for Action.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

4 authors.

Michelle L McGowanDepartment of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: michelle.mcgowan@case.edu.
Richard A SetterstenCollege of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Eric T JuengstCenter for Bioethics, Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Jennifer R FishmanBiomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

Supplement to Anticipating Personalized Genomic Medicine: Impact and ImplicationsR01HG005277 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI FISHMAN, JENNIFER, JUENGST, ERIC T · 2010 to 2013
$2.3M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005277NHGRI NIH HHS R01HG005277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe use of molecular tools to individualize health care, predict appropriate therapies, and prevent adverse health outcomes has gained significant traction in the field of oncology under the banner of "personalized medicine" (PM). Enthusiasm for PM in oncology has been fueled by success stories of targeted treatments for a variety of cancers based on their molecular profiles. Though these are clear indications of optimism for PM, little is known about the ethical and social implications of personalized approaches in clinical oncology.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess how a range of stakeholders engaged in promoting, monitoring, and providing PM understand the challenges of integrating genomic testing and targeted therapies into clinical oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study involved the analysis of in-depth interviews with 117 stakeholders whose experiences and perspectives on PM span a wide variety of institutional and professional settings.

resultsDespite their considerable enthusiasm for this shift, promoters, monitors, and providers of PM identified 4 domains that provoke heightened ethical and social concerns: (1) informed consent for cancer genomic testing, (2) privacy, confidentiality, and disclosure of genomic test results, (3) access to genomic testing and targeted therapies in oncology, and (4) the costs of scaling up pharmacogenomic testing and targeted cancer therapies.

conclusionsThese specific concerns are not unique to oncology, or even genomics. However, those most invested in the success of PM view oncologists' responses to these challenges as precedent setting because oncology is farther along the path of clinical integration of genomic technologies than other fields of medicine. This study illustrates that the rapid emergence of PM approaches in clinical oncology provides a crucial lens for identifying and managing potential frictions and pitfalls that emerge as health care paradigms shift in these directions.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityDelivery of Health CareDisclosureGenetic PrivacyGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMedical OncologyNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineCancer genomicsEthicsGenomic testingPersonalized medicineSocial implicationsTargeted therapies

Identifiers

PMID24445286
PMCPMC3900115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.