Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41066730›Full record

SynthesisJCO precision oncology2025

Factors Associated With Implementation of Biomarker Testing and Strategies to Improve Its Clinical Uptake in Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using Theoretical Domains Framework.

Rehana A Salam, Kate L A Dunlop, Tuba N Gide, James Wilmott, Andrea Smith, Anne E Cust

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JCO precision oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Rehana A SalamThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5423-7343
Kate L A DunlopThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9544-9764
Tuba N GideMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2473-5565
James WilmottMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6750-5244
Andrea SmithThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9194-4888
Anne E CustThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5331-6370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to synthesize evidence on factors associated with implementation of biomarker testing and strategies to improve its clinical uptake in cancer care.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched until July 7, 2024. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework to report factors associated with implementation of biomarker testing from clinicians' and patients' perspectives and identify strategies to improve its clinical uptake.

resultsWe included 77 studies: 47 studies reported factors from clinicians' perspective, 33 studies reported patients' perspective, 23 studies reported implementation strategies, and seven studies evaluated effectiveness of interventions to facilitate implementation and improve uptake. Clinicians reported inconsistent knowledge and skills related to interpreting results of biomarker testing, making treatment recommendations, and communicating findings of uncertainty and its implications for patients. Patients reported gaps in their knowledge about biomarker testing, how it related to treatment, and the research processes. Long turnaround times, lack of coverage by health insurance plans, and logistical constraints also impaired implementation. Concerns associated with inappropriate use of biomarker testing in unvalidated populations, safety and efficacy profiles of the corresponding immuno-oncology agents, lack of access to corresponding trials, and setting potentially unrealistic expectations for patients regarding their prognosis were highlighted. There are scarce data on strategies and interventions to facilitate implementation and improve uptake of biomarker testing. Setting up an institutional tumor board, multidisciplinary team coordination, and formal ongoing education were the most frequently reported strategies to facilitate implementation. Educational interventions were reported to be feasible, acceptable, and increased knowledge.

conclusionThis review highlights many factors that are amenable to aid implementation and clinical uptake. However, there is a need to evaluate strategies addressing uncertainties and barriers.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorNeoplasmsHumansBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID41066730
PMCPMC12520037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.