Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25209923›Full record

ArticleCancer2015

Attitudes toward molecular testing for personalized cancer therapy.

Rafeek A Yusuf, Deevakar Rogith, Shelly R A Hovick, Susan K Peterson, Allison M Burton-Chase, Bryan M Fellman, Yisheng Li, Carolyn McKinney, Elmer V Bernstam, Funda Meric-Bernstam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Trends in BRCA testing and socioeconomic deprivation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Rafeek A YusufSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Deevakar Rogith
Shelly R A Hovick
Susan K Peterson
Allison M Burton-Chase
Bryan M Fellman
Yisheng Li
Carolyn McKinney
Elmer V Bernstam
Funda Meric-Bernstam

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
R25 SUPPLEMENT IN GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY EDUCATIONR25CA057730 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CHANG, SHINE · 1992 to 2016
$18.6M
Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS)UL1TR000371 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
REACTIVE INTERMEDIATES OF ENZYMATIC REACTIONSR01GM039754 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI RICHARD, JOHN P · 1993 to 2012
$3.9M
Informatics to enable routine personalized cancer therapyU01CA180964 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI BERNSTAM, ELMER V., MERIC-BERNSTAM, FUNDA · 2013 to 2015
$964k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000371NCI NIH HHS 1U01 CA180964NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R25T CA57730NCI NIH HHS U01 CA180964NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM039754
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study assessed attitudes of breast cancer patients toward molecular testing for personalized therapy and research.

methodsA questionnaire was given to female breast cancer patients presenting to a cancer center. Associations between demographic and clinical variables and attitudes toward molecular testing were evaluated.

resultsThree hundred eight patients were approached, and 100 completed the questionnaire (a 32% response rate). Most participants were willing to undergo molecular testing to assist in the selection of approved drugs (81%) and experimental therapy (59%) if testing was covered by insurance. Most participants were white (71%). Even if testing was financially covered, nonwhite participants were less willing to undergo molecular testing for the selection of approved drugs (54% of nonwhites vs 90% of whites, odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, P = .0004) or experimental drugs (35% vs 68%, OR = 0.26, P = .0072). Most participants (75%) were willing to undergo a biopsy to guide therapy, and 46% were willing to undergo research biopsies. Nonwhite participants were less willing to undergo research biopsies (17% vs 55%, OR = 0.17, P = .0033). Most participants wanted to be informed when research results had implications for treatment (91%), new cancer risk (90%), and other preventable/treatable diseases (87%).

conclusionsMost patients were willing to undergo molecular testing and minimally invasive procedures to guide approved or experimental therapy. There were significant differences in attitudes toward molecular testing between racial groups; nonwhites were less willing to undergo testing even if the results would guide their own therapy. Novel approaches are needed to prevent disparities in the delivery of genomically informed care and to increase minority participation in biomarker-driven trials. Cancer 2015;121:243-50. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingMolecular Targeted TherapyPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrecision MedicineAdultAgedAntineoplastic AgentsAttitude to HealthBreast NeoplasmsEducational StatusFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMarital StatusMiddle AgedAntineoplastic Agentsbiomarkersdisparitiesmolecular testingpersonalized cancer therapyquestionnairesurvey

Identifiers

PMID25209923
PMCPMC4293219

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.