ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016
Oncologists' and cancer patients' views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 7 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
67 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of preferences for additional findings from genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs in oncology pharmacogenomics: A systematic review.Clinical and translational science · 2023Pooled it
- Mainstreaming genetics and genomics: a systematic review of the barriers and facilitators for nurses and physicians in secondary and tertiary care.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Pooled it
- Genetic diagnosis in first or second trimester pregnancy loss using exome sequencing: a systematic review of human essential genes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019Pooled it
- Adopting clinical genomics: a systematic review of genomic literacy among physicians in cancer care.BMC medical genomics · 2018Pooled it
- Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Pooled it
- Application of a concise video to improve patient understanding of tumor genomic testing in community and academic practice settings.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Patient perspectives on testing for clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential.Blood advances · 2022Trial
- Trial
- How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Design of a randomized controlled trial for genomic carrier screening in healthy patients seeking preconception genetic testing.Contemporary clinical trials · 2017Trial
- How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Individualized Neoantigen-Directed Melanoma Therapy.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025Review
- Comparative Analysis of Generative Pre-Trained Transformer Models in Oncogene-Driven Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Introducing the Generative Artificial Intelligence Performance Score.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- What Do Patients With Cancer Know, or Want to Know, About Genomic Tumor Sequencing and Genetic Testing? A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Review
- Preparing for the unexpected: Recommendations for returning secondary findings in late-stage cancer care.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Development of a novel measure of advanced cancer patients' perceived utility of secondary germline findings from tumor genomic profiling.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Expectations, concerns, and attitudes regarding whole-genome sequencing studies: a survey of cancer patients, families, and the public in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2023Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough targeted sequencing improves outcomes for many cancer patients, it remains uncertain how somatic and germ-line whole-exome sequencing (WES) will integrate into care.
methodsWe conducted surveys and interviews within a study of WES integration at an academic center to determine oncologists' attitudes about WES and to identify lung and colorectal cancer patients' preferences for learning WES findings.
resultsOne-hundred sixty-seven patients (85% white, 58% female, mean age 60) and 27 oncologists (22% female) participated. Although oncologists had extensive experience ordering somatic tests (median 100/year), they had little experience ordering germ-line tests. Oncologists intended to disclose most WES results to patients but anticipated numerous challenges in using WES. Patients had moderately low levels of genetic knowledge (mean 4 correct out of 7). Most patients chose to learn results that could help select a clinical trial, pharmacogenetic and positive prognostic results, and results suggesting inherited predisposition to cancer and treatable noncancer conditions (all ≥95%). Fewer chose to receive negative prognostic results (84%) and results suggesting predisposition to untreatable noncancer conditions (85%).
conclusionThe majority of patients want most cancer-related and incidental WES results. Patients' low levels of genetic knowledge and oncologists' inexperience with large-scale sequencing present challenges to implementing paired WES in practice.Genet Med 18 10, 1011-1019.
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.