ArticleCancer medicine2025
Patient and Clinician Perspectives on the Communication of Genomic Results in Cancer Care.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Next-Generation Sequencing in Cardiovascular Disease: A New Era of Precision Cardiology.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Aligning awareness, systems and policy to increase equitable access to genomically driven cancer care.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
- Patient and Clinician Perspectives on the Communication of Genomic Results in Cancer Care.Cancer medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatients diagnosed with advanced cancer are increasingly being offered comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to determine whether they are eligible for biomarker-informed treatment. The communication of CGP results to patients can be suboptimal and associated with patient anxiety. This study explores patient, clinician and public experiences of CGP and preferred methods of communicating results.
methodsFocus groups were held with patients and carers, with the resulting data evaluated by thematic analysis. Concurrently, a questionnaire was designed and distributed to 60 clinicians involved in CGP studies.
resultsTwenty-four patients with a current/previous cancer diagnosis and 10 carers attended the focus groups. Experience with CGP was minimal and often limited to what participants had read on the internet. Patients/carers felt the delivery of results was very complicated and emphasised emotional facets to communicating CGP results and the wish for delivery to be tailored to them. Questionnaire responses were received from 10 UK sites. 92% of clinicians ensured patients received their CGP results, with the majority (57%) returning all CGP results, but 30% would only report on actionable mutations. Results were delivered face to face by 38% of clinicians, while other methods included letters, phone calls, or a combination of approaches. Many clinicians expressed an interest in receiving training on how to feedback CGP results.
conclusionThere is a need to develop and implement a standardised approach to returning CGP results, as well as increasing healthcare professional education and confidence with interpreting CGP. Due to the increasing access to CGP as part of routine healthcare, it is essential clinicians feel confident to interpret this information and that patients have results returned to them in an understandable format.
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.