Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31675070›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020

Factors Associated With Oncologist Discussions of the Costs of Genomic Testing and Related Treatments.

K Robin Yabroff, Jingxuan Zhao, Janet S de Moor, Helmneh M Sineshaw, Andrew N Freedman, Zhiyuan Zheng, Xuesong Han, Ashish Rai, Carrie N Klabunde

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.2field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Financial toxicity in lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Talking the Talk About Tumor Genomic Testing.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K Robin YabroffSurveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Jingxuan ZhaoSurveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Janet S de MoorDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences.
Helmneh M SineshawSurveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Andrew N FreedmanDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences.
Zhiyuan ZhengSurveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Xuesong HanSurveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Ashish RaiSurveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Carrie N KlabundeNational Cancer Institute, and Office of Disease Prevention, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
American Cancer Society · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions.

methodsWe identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancer patients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided.

resultsAmong oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured.

conclusionsInterventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultFemaleGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOncologistsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31675070
PMCPMC7225678
OpenAlexW2984352063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.