Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32407502›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Assessment of the Value of Tumor Variation Profiling Perceived by Patients With Cancer.

Phyllis Butow, Grace Davies, Christine E Napier, Timothy Schlub, Megan C Best, Nicole Bartley, Ilona Juraskova, Bettina Meiser, Mandy L Ballinger, Barbara Biesecker and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

13 authors.

Phyllis ButowPsycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney School of Psychology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Grace DaviesPsycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney School of Psychology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Christine E NapierCancer Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Timothy SchlubSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Megan C BestPsycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney School of Psychology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nicole BartleyPsycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney School of Psychology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ilona JuraskovaCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, The University of Sydney School of Psychology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Bettina MeiserPsychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Mandy L BallingerCancer Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Barbara BieseckerRTI International, Washington, DC.
David GoldsteinDepartment of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
David M ThomasCancer Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
PiGeOn Project

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Use of tumor molecular profiling (MP) is entering routine clinical practice; however, little is known about how much and why patients value MP. Objective: To examine the perceived value of MP to patients with advanced cancer and factors associated with perceived value. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey that included willingness-to-pay trade-off scenarios was administered to participants after consent and before MP. A total of 777 participants (94% response rate) were recruited from the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program. Eligible patients had advanced solid cancers of any histologic type, were receiving or had completed their last line of effective therapy, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 to 3, and had sufficient accessible tissue for MP. The participants were recruited between October 24, 2017, and March 12, 2019, and data analysis was conducted from March 13 to April 14, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Willingness to pay for MP was assessed via hypothetical trade-off scenarios varying in the actionable return rate (1%, 20%, or 40%) and cost (A$0, A$300 [US$210], A$1000 [US $700], A$3000 [US $2100], or A$10 000 [US $7000]). Ordinal regressions were used to explore factors associated with willingness to have and pay for MP. Results: Of 777 participants (405 women [52%]; mean [SD] age, 55.47 [14.26] years), 689 patients (89%) would have MP for as little as a 1% actionable return rate. Fifty-six patients (7%) would require at least a 20% return rate and 11 patients (1%) would require at least a 40% return rate. Fifteen patients (2%) consistently chose not to have the test; 6 participants (0.8%) had missing values on this item. Participants were willing to pay a median of A$1000 if the actionable return rate was 1% and A$3000 for an actionable return rate of 20% to 40%. Of 762 individuals who agreed to testing, 482 patients (64%) were consistently unwilling to pay A$10 000, regardless of the actionable return rate. Patients born in Australia or New Zealand were more likely to want MP (eg, participants born in South Asia had an ordered odds for the tipping point of 7.74 [95% CI, 1.67-36.05; P = .009] times higher than Australian- and/or New Zealand-born participants). Patients born in Australia or New Zealand were also more willing to pay A$1000 or A$3000 (eg, participants born in Western Europe had an ordered odds for the tipping point for paying A$1000 of 1.74 [95% CI, 1.01-3.00; P = .048] times higher than Australian- and/or New Zealand-born participants). People with a medical- or science-related occupation and with more negative attitudes toward uncertainty were more likely to pay A$10 000 (eg, A$10 000 tipping point-ordered odds of participants with a medical- or science-related occupation was 0.49 [95% CI, 0.7-0.87; P = .02] times that of participants without a medical- or science-related occupation). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found apparent high interest in but lower willingness to pay for MP among patients with advanced cancer. Ability to pay may limit access to MP. Ongoing societal debate is required to establish the value of MP and whether subsidization is needed to ensure equity of access.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareBiomarkers, TumorCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFinancing, PersonalGene Expression ProfilingHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID32407502
PMCPMC7225901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.