Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28192596›Full record

ArticleCancer2017

Integrating next-generation sequencing into pediatric oncology practice: An assessment of physician confidence and understanding of clinical genomics.

Liza-Marie Johnson, Jessica M Valdez, Emily A Quinn, April D Sykes, Rose B McGee, Regina Nuccio, Stacy J Hines-Dowell, Justin N Baker, Chimene Kesserwan, Kim E Nichols and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Liza-Marie JohnsonDivision of Hospitalist Medicine, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Jessica M ValdezDivision of Cancer Predisposition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Emily A QuinnDivision of Cancer Predisposition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
April D SykesDepartment of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Rose B McGeeDivision of Cancer Predisposition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Regina NuccioDivision of Cancer Predisposition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Stacy J Hines-DowellDivision of Cancer Predisposition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Justin N BakerDivision of Quality of Life and Palliative Care, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Chimene KesserwanDivision of Cancer Predisposition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Kim E NicholsDivision of Cancer Predisposition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
Belinda N MandrellDivision of Nursing Research, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital · US

Funding

Viral Vector Technology (VVTSR)P30CA021765 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI CHARLES ROBERTS · 1985 to 2026
$166.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA021765NHGRI NIH HHS L40 HG008075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incorporation of genomic testing to identify targetable somatic alterations and predisposing germline mutations into the clinical setting is becoming increasingly more common. Despite its potential usefulness, to the authors' knowledge physician confidence with regard to understanding and applying genomic testing remains unclear, particularly within the realm of pediatric oncology.

methodsBefore initiating an institutional feasibility study regarding the integration of clinical genomic testing, the authors surveyed pediatric oncologists regarding their confidence around understanding of genomic testing, perceived usefulness of test results, preferences around the disclosure of germline test results, and possible risks and benefits of testing.

resultsAmong survey respondents (52 of 88 contacted; response rate of 59%), only a minority were confident in interpreting, using, and discussing somatic (35%) or germline (27%) genomic test results. Providers who were confident in interpreting somatic results were significantly more likely to anticipate using the results to plan the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory cancers (P = .009). Similarly, providers who reported confidence in interpreting germline results were significantly more likely to discuss and use these results as part of clinical care (P<.0001). The majority of physicians (93%), regardless of their level of confidence, wanted to speak to a genetic counselor before disclosing germline test results.

conclusionsAmong physicians at a comprehensive pediatric cancer center, confidence in the interpretation, use, and discussion of oncology-based genomic test results appears to be low, both in terms of somatic and germline testing. To optimize the integration of genomic sequencing into cancer care, methods must be developed to improve basic competencies around cancer-based genomic testing. Given the complexities surrounding variant interpretation and genotype-phenotype relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2352-2359. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceGenetic TestingMedical OncologyPediatricsPhysiciansDisclosureGenetic CounselingGenomicsGerm-Line MutationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMutationNeoplasmsSurveys and Questionnairescancer genomicsclinical genomicspediatric oncologyprovider confidence

Identifiers

PMID28192596
PMCPMC5710798
OpenAlexW2588039986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.