ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Potential barriers to implementation of next-generation sequencing in cancer management: a U.S. Physician-based survey.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-generation sequencing-based high-risk genomic stratification in multiple myeloma.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- GenoGlyph: Pan-cancer genomic mutation inference and risk stratification from diagnostic histopathology slides.Research square · 2026Article
- Genomic innovations in cancer prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and precision therapeutics.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pre-emptive DPYD Genotyping Compared to Standard of Care Among Patients Receiving Fluoropyrimidine-Based Anti-cancer Treatment in Australia.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify barriers to physicians' NGS use and preferred strategies to alleviate these barriers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA cross-sectional online survey link was sent to a sample of US oncologists/hematologists, surgeons, and pathologists identified through a panel. The survey collected data, from October-December 2020, on barriers to NGS testing and potential strategies.
resultsTwo hundred physicians participated (mean age: 46.2 years; 65% male; 80% White, mean years in clinical practice: 13.7). Despite the use of NGS testing by all physicians, 99.5% reported concerns/barriers. Reimbursement challenges were the most cited reason (87.5%), followed by lack of knowledge of NGS testing methodologies (81.0%), and lack of clinical utility evidence (80.0%). The most common reimbursement challenge was prior authorizations for NGS testing (72.0%), followed by knowledge of new fee codes for reimbursement or corresponding therapy (68.0%), and paperwork/administrative duties (67.5%). Surgeons were more likely to encounter challenges in using NGS testing than other physicians.
conclusionsThe results highlight the barriers reported by oncologists/hematologists, pathologists, and surgeons, which may impact the evolving role of NGS in the context of the overall management of cancer patients.
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.