Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26931736›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

The current use and attitudes towards tumor genome sequencing in breast cancer.

I Gingras, A Sonnenblick, E de Azambuja, M Paesmans, S Delaloge, Philippe Aftimos, M J Piccart, C Sotiriou, M Ignatiadis, H A Azim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

I GingrasDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
A SonnenblickDepartment of Medicine, BrEAST Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
E de AzambujaDepartment of Medicine, BrEAST Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
M PaesmansData Centre, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
S DelalogeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Philippe AftimosMedical Oncology Clinic, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
M J PiccartDepartment of Medicine, BrEAST Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
C SotiriouBreast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory J. C. Heuson, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
M IgnatiadisBreast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory J. C. Heuson, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
H A AzimDepartment of Medicine, BrEAST Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet/Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Institut Jules Bordet · BEHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal · CAInstitut Gustave Roussy · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing availability of technologies that can interrogate the genomic landscape of an individual tumor; however, their impact on daily practice remains uncertain. We conducted a 28-item survey to investigate the current attitudes towards the integration of tumor genome sequencing in breast cancer management. A link to the survey was communicated via newsletters of several oncological societies, and dedicated mailing by academic research groups. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was carried out to determine the relationship between predictors and outcomes. 215 physicians participated to the survey. The majority were medical oncologists (88%), practicing in Europe (70%) and working in academic institutions (66%). Tumor genome sequencing was requested by 82 participants (38%), of whom 21% reported low confidence in their genomic knowledge, and 56% considered tumor genome sequencing to be poorly accessible. In multivariable analysis, having time allocated to research (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.84-6.15, p < 0.0001), working in Asia (OR 5.76, 95% CI 1.57 - 21.15, p = 0.01) and having institutional guidelines for molecular sequencing (OR 2.09, 95% 0.99-4.42, p = 0.05) were associated with a higher probability of use. In conclusion, our survey indicates that tumor genome sequencing is sometimes used, albeit not widely, in guiding management of breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthGenetic TestingGenomeBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPregnancySequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID26931736
PMCPMC4773754
OpenAlexW2290062795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.