ArticleJCO precision oncology2017
Communicating About Precision Oncology.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision cancer medicine and the doctor-patient relationship: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- The Psychosocial Impact of the Decision to Undergo Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy Surgery inCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- A Comparison of Patients' and Physicians' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Precision Oncology Tests.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Multiple approaches to enhancing cancer communication in the next decade: translating research into practice and policy.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Clinician perspectives on communication and implementation challenges in precision oncology.Personalized medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Communication in oncology has always been challenging. The new era of precision medicine complicates communication even further as a result of our increasing reliance on genomic data and the varying psychological responses to genomic-based treatments and their expected outcomes. The crux of the matter hinges on understanding communication. The informed consent process may require more attention in the precision medicine era. However, many of the communication issues are actually similar to perennial long-standing communication issues in oncology, which center on providing hope when breaking bad news and ensuring that adequate informed consent to treatments is obtained. This piece presents several common patient reactions to different precision medicine scenarios in oncology practice. We highlight these new communication issues that focus on clinical and ethical questions (ie, informed consent, shared decision making, patient autonomy, and uncertainty in oncologic treatments) and provide guidance on working with each scenario. In this article, we address common reactions of patients to genomic information and provide thoughtful communication suggestions using a Shared Decision Making framework to help patients cope with the inherent distress-provoking uncertainties in oncology practice.
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.