ArticleThe oncologist2015
The value of personalizing medicine: medical oncologists' views on gene expression profiling in breast cancer treatment.
Article in The oncologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Approaches to Incorporation of Preferences into Health Economic Models of Genomic Medicine: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis and Conceptual Framework.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Precision cancer medicine and the doctor-patient relationship: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring healthcare personnel's knowledge, barriers, and innovative approaches in personalised oncology medicine: a scoping review.Critical public health · 2025Review
- Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.PloS one · 2025Article
- Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- Integrating China in the international consortium for personalised medicine. a position paper on healthcare professionals' education and citizens' empowerment in personalised medicine.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Using Breast Cancer Gene Expression Signatures in Clinical Practice: Unsolved Issues, Ongoing Trials and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2021Review
- Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- How Canadian Oncologists Use Oncotype DX for Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Pharmacogenomics Implementation and Hurdles to Overcome; In the Context of a Developing Country.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2021Article
- Patient and physician factors associated with Oncotype DX and adjuvant chemotherapy utilization for breast cancer patients in New Hampshire, 2010-2016.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Patients' perceptions of 70-gene signature testing: commonly changing the initial inclination to undergo or forego chemotherapy and reducing decisional conflict.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
- Lessons learned from a cancer knowledge translation grants program: results of an evaluation.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- Providing guidance for genomics-based cancer treatment decisions: insights from stakeholder engagement for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Uptake of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer practice: views of academic and community-based oncologists.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Estimating the OncotypeDX score: validation of an inexpensive estimation tool.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2017Article
- Clinical use of the Oncotype DX genomic test to guide treatment decisions for patients with invasive breast cancer.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2017Review
- MammaPrint versus EndoPredict: Poor correlation in disease recurrence risk classification of hormone receptor positive breast cancer.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
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
Abstract
objectivesGuidelines recommend gene-expression profiling (GEP) tests to identify early-stage breast cancer patients who may benefit from chemotherapy. However, variation exists in oncologists' use of GEP. We explored medical oncologists' views of GEP tests and factors impacting its use in clinical practice.
methodsWe used a qualitative design, comprising telephone interviews with medical oncologists (n = 14; 10 academic, 4 in the community) recruited through oncology clinics, professional advertisements, and referrals. Interviews were analyzed for anticipated and emergent themes using the constant comparative method including searches for disconfirming evidence.
resultsSome oncologists considered GEP to be a tool that enhanced confidence in their established approach to risk assessments, whereas others described it as "critical" to resolving their uncertainty about whether to recommend chemotherapy. Some community oncologists also valued the test in interpreting what they considered variable practice and accuracy across pathology reports and testing facilities. However, concerns were also raised about GEP's cost, overuse, inappropriate use, and over-reliance on the results within the medical community. In addition, although many oncologists said it was simple to explain the test to patients, paradoxically, they remained uncertain about patients' understanding of the test results and their treatment implications.
conclusionOncologists valued the test as a treatment-decision support tool despite their concerns about its cost, over-reliance, overuse, and inappropriate use by other oncologists, as well as patients' limited understanding of GEP. The results identify a need for decision aids to support patients' understanding and clinical practice guidelines to facilitate standardized use of the test.
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.