ArticleBMC cancer2016
A survey of physician receptivity to molecular diagnostic testing and readiness to act on results for early-stage colon cancer patients.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01972737 (A Phase I Study of Guanylyl Cyclase C), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
A Phase I Study of Guanylyl Cyclase C (GCC)-Encoding Replication-Deficient Human Type 5 Recombinant Adenovirus Vaccine (Ad5-hGCC-PADRE) in Stage I and II Colon Cancer Patients
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care patient interests in joining a planned multi-cancer early detection clinical trial.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Understanding inequities in precision oncology diagnostics.Nature cancer · 2023Review
- Guanylyl cyclase C as a diagnostic and therapeutic target in colorectal cancer.Personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies.Genome medicine · 2020Review
- Preparing Medical Specialists to Practice Genomic Medicine: Education an Essential Part of a Broader Strategy.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
- Managing the genomic revolution in cancer diagnostics.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2017Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to assess physician interest in molecular prognosic testing for patients with early stage colon cancer, and identify factors associated with the likelihood of test adoption.
methodsWe identified physicians who care for patients with early-stage (pN0) colon cancer patients, mailed them a survey, and analyzed survey responses to assess clinician receptivity to the use of a new molecular test (GUCY2C) that identifies patients at risk for recurrence, and clinician readiness to act on abnormal test results.
resultsOf 104 eligible potential respondents, 41 completed and returned the survey. Among responding physicians, 56 % were receptive to using the new prognostic test. Multivariable analyses showed that physicians in academic medical centers were significantly more receptive to molecular test use than those in non-academic settings. Forty-one percent of respondents were ready to act on abnormal molecular test results. Physicians who viewed current staging methods as inaccurate and were confident in their capacity to incorporate molecular testing in practice were more likely to say they would act on abnormal test results.
conclusionsPhysician receptivity to molecular diagnostic testing for early-stage colon cancer patients is likely to be influenced by practice setting and perceptions related to delivering quality care to patients.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01972737.
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.