ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Physician knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic biomarker testing for the management of patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: an international physician 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 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.
- Prognostic and therapeutic implications of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in ovarian cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Leveraging machine learning models to evaluate immune infiltration in the ovarian cancer microenvironment: a single-cell analysis approach.Discover oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo explore physician-reported knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic testing for advanced ovarian cancer management. MATERIALS &
methodsGynecology/oncology specialists (
resultsPhysician-reported breast cancer gene mutation (BRCAm) testing rates increased over the 2 years before the survey; most patients underwent testing in the preceding 6 months. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) genomic instability testing rates and physicians' confidence interpreting results remained relatively low. Genetic testing was driven by the associated treatment implications of the findings. Poor performance status, inadequate tissue, and patients' willingness to undergo testing were reported barriers to testing.
conclusionsFindings indicate that there is a need to improve both access to and information about HRD testing.
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.