ArticleCancer2015
Attitudes toward molecular testing for personalized cancer therapy.
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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of preferences for additional findings from genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Pooled it
- Factors Associated With Implementation of Biomarker Testing and Strategies to Improve Its Clinical Uptake in Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using Theoretical Domains Framework.JCO precision oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Application of a concise video to improve patient understanding of tumor genomic testing in community and academic practice settings.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Healthcare disparities, screening, and molecular testing in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a review.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2024Review
- A video intervention to improve patient understanding of tumor genomic testing in patients with cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Development of a novel measure of advanced cancer patients' perceived utility of secondary germline findings from tumor genomic profiling.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Patient Understanding of Tumor Genomic Testing: A Quality Improvement Effort.JCO oncology practice · 2023Review
- Sociodemographic disparities in molecular testing for breast cancer.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- The Genomics of Colorectal Cancer in Populations with African and European Ancestry.Cancer discovery · 2022Article
- Association Between Cancer Prevalence and Different Socioeconomic Strata in the US: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2018.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Patients' and Oncologists' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Tumor Multigene Next-Generation Sequencing: A Narrative Review.The oncologist · 2021Review
- Article
- Examining the uptake of predictive BRCA testing in the UK; findings and implications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Advanced Cancer Patient Knowledge of and Attitudes towards Tumor Molecular Profiling.Translational oncology · 2020Article
- Cancer Patient-Reported Preferences and Knowledge for Liquid Biopsies and Blood Biomarkers at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.Cancer management and research · 2020Article
- Trends in BRCA testing and socioeconomic deprivation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Everolimus-containing therapy vs conventional therapy in the treatment of refractory breast cancer patients with PI3K/AKT/mTOR mutations: A retrospective study.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Implementation of Precision Cancer Medicine: Progress and the Path to Realizing the Promise of Tumor Sequencing.Journal of oncology practice · 2019Article
- What do people think about genetics? A systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.