Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32914003›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2018

Oncologists' Use of Genomic Sequencing Data to Inform Clinical Management.

Michele C Gornick, Erin Cobain, Lan Q Le, Natalie Bartnik, Elena Stoffel, Scott Schuetze, Moshe Talpaz, Arul Chinnaiyan, J Scott Roberts, Michigan Oncology Sequencing Study

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advancing maturity modeling for precision oncology.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Michele C GornickUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Erin CobainUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lan Q LeUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Natalie BartnikUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Elena StoffelUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Scott SchuetzeUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Moshe TalpazUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Arul ChinnaiyanUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
J Scott RobertsUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Michigan Oncology Sequencing Study

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MCHR)UL1TR000433 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2012 to 2016
$49.9M
Sequencing, Analysis, and Interpretation of SequencingUM1HG006508 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHINNAIYAN, ARUL M, PIENTA, KENNETH J. · 2013 to 2016
$7.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000433NHGRI NIH HHS UM1 HG006508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine whether oncologists intended to change treatment as a result of tumor sequencing, and subsequently, whether patients experienced an alteration of clinical management or derived clinical benefit. PATIENTS AND

methodsA prospective survey of oncologists referring adult patients with rare, advanced, or refractory cancer to the Michigan Oncology Sequencing program was conducted from June 2014 to March 2015 to assess the use of and intent to disclose sequencing findings. Oncologists' responses were compared with the referred patients' self-reported survey responses, and a content analysis of disclosure documented in the medical record was performed. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively to determine if clinical management was informed or changed by sequencing results.

resultsOncologists (response rate, 93%) referring 112 consecutive patients were surveyed. Medical records of patients were reviewed for changes in clinical management on the basis of sequencing findings. Oncologists intended to change the treatment of 22% of patients (n = 24) on the basis of sequencing findings. Of these patients, 37.5% (n = 9) had an actual change in clinical management. Thirty-four patients with postsequencing survey data reported that a results disclosure discussion did not occur, despite documentation of disclosure by the physician in the medical record.

conclusionsFindings demonstrate that many oncologists view next-generation sequencing results to be potentially valuable in directing subsequent therapy for their patients; however, barriers in communicating results to patients and implementing them in clinical management remain.

Identifiers

PMID32914003
PMCPMC7446532

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.