ArticleBMC cancer2019
Patient perspectives on molecular tumor profiling: "Why wouldn't you?"
Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Development of a question prompt list to support Consent for Genomic Testing (CoGenT) and research.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Experiences accessing and receiving tumour genetic profiling in Victoria: a consumer-led cross-sectional survey study.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of Spiritual Wellbeing in Advanced Cancer Patients Receiving Genomic Test Results.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Animated videos for childhood cancer precision medicine: development and evaluation with parents and patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Patient and physician preferences for cancer panel testing in Japan: a best-worst scaling study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Utility of Germline, Somatic and ctDNA Testing in Adults With Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Review
- How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Exploring Literacy and Knowledge Gaps and Disparities in Genetics and Oncogenomics Among Cancer Patients and the General Population: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Relevant factors for policy concerning comprehensive genomic profiling in oncology: stakeholder perspectives.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Observational
- Sharing Genomic Tumor Sequencing Results With Patients: Experiences of Advanced Practice Oncology Providers.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 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
- Equitable Access to Genomic Molecular Testing for Australian Cancer Patients: Insights from the Victorian Precision Oncology Summit.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Patient survey on cancer genomic medicine in Japan under the national health insurance system.Cancer science · 2024Article
- A survey of genetic and palliative care health professionals' views of integrating genetics into palliative care.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Urban-Rural and Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Knowledge and Perceptions of Genomic Tumor Testing.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Reflex BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer: streamlined for clinicians but what do patients think?Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study explored the attitudes of patients with advanced cancer towards MTP and return of results, prior to undergoing genomic testing within a research program.
methodsParticipants were recruited as part of the longitudinal PiGeOn (Psychosocial Issues in Genomics in Oncology) study involving patients with advanced/metastatic solid cancer who had exhausted therapeutic options and who were offered MTP in order to identify cognate therapies. Twenty patients, selected by purposive sampling, were interviewed around the time they gave consent to MTP. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Themes identified in the transcripts were cross-validated via qualitative responses to the PiGeOn study survey (n = 569; 63%).
resultsAll interviewed participants gave consent to MTP without reservation. Three themes were identified and further supported via the survey responses: (1) Obvious agreement to participate, primarily because of desire for new treatments and altruism. (2) The black box - while participant knowledge of genomics was generally poor, faith in their oncologists and the scientific process encouraged them to proceed with testing; and (3) Survival is the priority - receiving treatment to prolong life was the priority for all participants, and other issues such as identification of a germline variant were generally seen as ancillary.
conclusionHaving advanced cancer seemed to abrogate any potential concerns about MTP. Participants valued the research for varied reasons, but this was secondary to their priority to survive. While no negative attitudes toward MTP emerged, limitations in understanding of genomics were evident.
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.