ReviewJCO oncology practice2023
Patient Understanding of Tumor Genomic Testing: A Quality Improvement Effort.
Review in JCO oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strength of evidence underlying the CMS-FDA parallel review of comprehensive genomic profiling tests in the cancer setting.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- A video intervention to improve patient understanding of tumor genomic testing in patients with cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTumor genomic testing (TGT) has become increasingly adopted as part of standard cancer care for many cancers. Despite national guidelines around patient education before TGT, available evidence suggests that most patients' understanding of genomics remains limited, particularly lower-income and minority patients, and most patients are not informed regarding potential incidental germline findings.
methodsTo investigate and address limitations in patient understanding of TGT results, a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach is being used to assess needs, identify opportunities for improvement, and implement approaches to optimize patient education. We reviewed published guidelines related to pre-TGT provider-patient education and to identify key points (Plan). A provider quality improvement survey was completed (Do), which highlighted inconsistency in pre-TGT discussion practice across providers and minimal discussion with patients regarding the possibility of incidental germline findings.
resultsPatient focus groups and interviews (N = 12 patients) were completed with coding of each transcript (Study), which revealed themes including trouble differentiating TGT from other forms of testing, yet understanding that results could tailor therapy. The integration of data across this initial PDSA cycle identified consistent themes and opportunities, which were incorporated into a patient-directed, concise animated video for pre-TGT education (Act), which will form the foundation of a subsequent PDSA cycle. The video addresses how TGT may/may not inform treatment, the process for TGT using existing tissue or liquid biopsy, insurance coverage, and the potential need for germline genetics follow-up because of incidental findings.
conclusionThis PDSA cycle reveals key gaps and opportunities for improvement in patient education before TGT.
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.