Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38273803›Full record

ArticleCancer science2024

Patient survey on cancer genomic medicine in Japan under the national health insurance system.

Hidenori Kage, Nana Akiyama, Hyangri Chang, Aya Shinozaki-Ushiku, Mirei Ka, Junichi Kawata, Manabu Muto, Yusuke Okuma, Natsuko Okita, Katsuya Tsuchihara and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

23 authors.

Hidenori KageDepartment of Clinical Genomics, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3658-4442
Nana AkiyamaDepartment of Clinical Genomics, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Hyangri ChangDepartment of Clinical Genomics, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Aya Shinozaki-UshikuDepartment of Clinical Genomics, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Mirei KaDivision of Integrative Genomics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Junichi KawataDepartment of Public Policy, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Manabu MutoDepartment of Therapeutic Oncology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3127-8203
Yusuke OkumaCenter for Cancer Genomics and Advanced Therapeutics, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Natsuko OkitaCenter for Cancer Genomics and Advanced Therapeutics, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsuya TsuchiharaDepartment of Genetic Medicine and Services, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7507-2349
Junko KikuchiDivision of Clinical Cancer Genomics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Hidekazu ShirotaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9154-9004
Hideyuki HayashiGenomics Unit, Keio Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4974-8015
Toshio KokuryoDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7176-7581
Shinichi YachidaDepartment of Cancer Genome Informatics, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5507-4566
Akira HirasawaDepartment of Clinical Genomic Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4124-5488
Makoto KuboDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.
Hirotsugu KenmotsuDivision of Thoracic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0590-9259
Masahiko TanabeDepartment of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6558-4399
Tetsuo UshikuDepartment of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kaori MutoDepartment of Public Policy, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasuyuki SetoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsutoshi OdaDepartment of Clinical Genomics, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2468-9573

Funding

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 20EA1006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Japan, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests have been reimbursed under the national health care system for solid cancer patients who have finished standard treatment. More than 50,000 patients have taken the test since June 2019. We performed a nation-wide questionnaire survey between March 2021 and July 2022. Questionnaires were sent to 80 designated Cancer Genomic Medicine Hospitals. Of the 933 responses received, 370 (39.7%) were web based and 563 (60.3%) were paper based. Most patients (784, 84%) first learned about CGP tests from healthcare professionals, and 775 (83.1%) gave informed consent to their treating physician. At the time of informed consent, they were most worried about test results not leading to novel treatment (536, 57.4%). On a scale of 0-10, 702 respondents (75.2%) felt that the explanations of the test result were easy to understand (7 or higher). Ninety-one patients (9.8%) started their recommended treatment. Many patients could not receive recommended treatment because no approved drugs or clinical trials were available (102/177, 57.6%). Ninety-eight patients (10.5%) did not wish their findings to be disclosed. Overall satisfaction with the CGP test process was high, with 602 respondents (64.5%) giving a score of 7-10. The major reason for choosing 0-6 was that the CGP test result did not lead to new treatment (217/277, 78.3%). In conclusion, satisfaction with the CGP test process was high. Patients and family members need better access to information. More patients need to be treated with genomically matched therapy.

Indexed as

Genomic MedicineNeoplasmsHumansJapanNational Health ProgramsSurveys and Questionnairescancer genomic medicinecomprehensive genomic profilingnational health care systempatient satisfactionsurvey

Identifiers

PMID38273803
PMCPMC10920978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.