Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31938761›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2017

Decision-Making Preferences About Secondary Germline Findings That Arise From Tumor Genomic Profiling Among Patients With Advanced Cancers.

Jada G Hamilton, Elyse Shuk, Margaux Genoff Garzon, Vivian M Rodríguez, Joy Westerman, Jennifer L Hay, Kenneth Offit, Mark E Robson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Jada G HamiltonBehavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Elyse ShukBehavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Margaux Genoff GarzonBehavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Vivian M RodríguezBehavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Joy WestermanBehavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Jennifer L HayBehavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Kenneth OffitClinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Mark E RobsonClinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn patients with advanced cancers, tumor genomic profiling (TGP) can reveal secondary germline findings (SGFs) regarding inherited disease risks. This study examines the process by which patients with advanced cancers would make the decision about whether or not to learn these SGFs, and their preferences regarding specific challenging decision scenarios including whether patients should be required to receive SGFs and whether SGFs should be returned to family after a patient's death. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 40 patients with advanced breast, bladder, colorectal, or lung cancer who had TGP. Data were collected regarding participants' perspectives about the hypothetical decision to learn their SGFs including their anticipated approach to the decision-making process, as well as their preferences about challenging decision scenarios. Data were evaluated using thematic content analysis.

resultsWe identified themes regarding participants' preferred degree of decisional autonomy, perceived vital role of doctors, information needs, and anticipated process of deliberation. Although participants reported that this decision was ultimately their own, many wanted input from family and trusted others. Oncologists were expected to provide decision guidance and key clarifying information. Most participants stated that patients should be able to make a choice about receiving actionable SGFs, and a majority stated that SGFs should be available to family after a patient's death.

conclusionThese results provide insight into SGFs decision-making processes of patients with advanced cancers, which can allow clinicians to provide patients optimal decision support in this context. Patients with advanced cancers have specific information needs and decision-making preferences that educational and communication interventions should address to ensure that patients make informed choices about learning SGFs.

Indexed as

cancerdecision makingincidental findingsprecision medicineSecondary findings

Identifiers

PMID31938761
PMCPMC6959200

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.