ArticleBMC cancer2021
Community oncologists' perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing.
Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06436157 (Genetic Testing Uptake Through an Enhanced Oncology Nurse-Led Intervention in Patients With Solid Tumors), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Genetic Testing Uptake Through an Enhanced Oncology Nurse-Led Intervention in Patients With Solid Tumors (GENESIS): A Pilot Study
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- The relationship between uncertainty and trust in genomic medicine and research: A literature review and thematic analysis.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Exploring healthcare personnel's knowledge, barriers, and innovative approaches in personalised oncology medicine: a scoping review.Critical public health · 2025Review
- Genome-matched treatments and patient outcomes in the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI).NPJ precision oncology · 2024Article
- The Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative: Implementing a Community Cancer Genomics Program Across an Entire Rural State.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Transcriptome analysis creates a new era of precision medicine for managing recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Epistemic Beliefs: Relationship to Future Expectancies and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2022Article
- The Role of Medical Mistrust in Concerns about Tumor Genomic Profiling among Black and African American Cancer Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- "Doing Good" in U.S. Cancer Genomics? Valuation practices across the boundaries of research and care in rural community oncology.New genetics and society · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLarge-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists' perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists' perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT.
methodsCommunity oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them.
resultsThere was substantial variability in clinicians' perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients' ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians' future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT.
conclusionsCommunity oncologists' perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.
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.