ArticleJCO oncology practice2021
Patient Knowledge and Expectations About Return of Genomic Results in a Biomarker-Driven Master Protocol Trial (SWOG S1400GEN).
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Factors Associated With Implementation of Biomarker Testing and Strategies to Improve Its Clinical Uptake in Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using Theoretical Domains Framework.JCO precision oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Community perspectives on the return of research results and ownership of data and specimens for brain tumor genomic research.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2026Article
- Aligning awareness, systems and policy to increase equitable access to genomically driven cancer care.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
- Exploring Literacy and Knowledge Gaps and Disparities in Genetics and Oncogenomics Among Cancer Patients and the General Population: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Discerning the impact of ctDNA detection on patient decision-making in early-stage breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2024Article
- Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Novel Approach to Accelerate Lung Cancer Research: Lung-MAP and the Potential of Public-Private Partnerships.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024Article
- Current communication practices for biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer: Exploring patient and clinician perspectives.Patient education and counseling · 2023Article
- Urban-Rural and Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Knowledge and Perceptions of Genomic Tumor Testing.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBiomarker-driven master protocols represent a new paradigm in oncology clinical trials, but their complex designs and wide-ranging genomic results returned can be difficult to communicate to participants. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate patient knowledge and expectations related to return of genomic results in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP).
methodsEligible participants with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were recruited from patients enrolled in Lung-MAP. Participants completed a 38-item telephone survey ≤ 30 days from Lung-MAP consent. The survey assessed understanding about the benefits and risks of Lung-MAP participation and knowledge of the potential uses of somatic testing results returned. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios for associations between demographic factors and correct responses to survey items were assessed.
resultsFrom August 1, 2017, to June 30, 2019, we recruited 207 participants with a median age of 67, 57.3% male, and 94.2% White. Most participants "strongly/somewhat agreed" with statements that they "received enough information to understand" Lung-MAP benefits (82.6%) and risks (69.5%). In items asking about potential uses of Lung-MAP genomic results, 87.0% correctly indicated that the results help to select cancer treatment, but < 20% correctly indicated that the results are not used to confirm cancer diagnosis, would not reveal risk of developing diseases besides cancer, and would not indicate if family members had increased cancer risk. There were no associations between sociodemographic factors and proportions providing correct responses.
conclusionIn a large National Clinical Trials Network biomarker-driven master protocol, most participants demonstrated incorrect knowledge and expectations about the uses of genomic results provided in the study despite most indicating that they had enough information to understand benefits and risks.
Indexed as
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.