Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35809119›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study.

Megan C Best, Nicci Bartley, Christine E Napier, Alana Fisher, Mandy L Ballinger, David M Thomas, David Goldstein, Katherine Tucker, Barbara B Biesecker, Phyllis Butow

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Megan C BestInstitute for Ethics and Society, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. megan.best@nd.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1570-8872
Nicci BartleyPsycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9052-1616
Christine E NapierGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8009-7735
Alana FisherSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6027-659X
Mandy L BallingerGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9706-0514
David M ThomasGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2527-5428
David GoldsteinPrince of Wales Hospital, Dept of Medical Oncology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6142-3291
Katherine TuckerPrince of Wales Medical School, Hereditary Cancer Centre, University of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7180-6576
Barbara B BieseckerEthics and Disability Studies, RTI International, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9665-8963
Phyllis ButowPsycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3562-6954

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting.

methodsSemi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach.

resultsWe identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment.

conclusionDespite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results.

Indexed as

GenomicsNeoplasmsHumansMedical OncologyQualitative ResearchCancerComprehensive tumour genomic profilingPatient perspectivesPsychological responsesReturn of results

Identifiers

PMID35809119
PMCPMC9512748

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.