SynthesisCancer medicine2026
Are There Socio-Demographic Inequalities in the Utilisation of Tumour and ctDNA Somatic Mutation Testing in Solid Tumours? A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSomatic mutation testing in solid tumours represents a rapidly advancing field which increases opportunities for access to molecularly targeted therapeutics and clinical trials. This systematic review determined whether socio-demographic inequalities affect utilisation of novel somatic mutation testing.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidance, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed studies (January 2018-March 2025). Data was extracted reporting utilisation of novel somatic mutation testing panels, including Oncotype DX, for solid tumours by socio-demographic measures. A modified International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist assessed study quality. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated where needed and narrative synthesis undertaken. Data was stratified by receipt of Oncotype DX testing and next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels.
resultsThe 27,749 citations screened identified 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. These reported on two modalities of testing (Oncotype DX and other NGS sequencing panels) across five cancers. Twenty-three studies were from US populations. These highlighted disparities in utility of testing across socio-demographic measures and particularly decreased utilisation with increased age, non-white ethnicity, lower socio-economic status, and non-private insurance. The mean study quality score by a modified ISPOR checklist was 8.3/10.
conclusionThese results provide a contemporary update on evidence of disparities in access to novel genomic testing. As an expanding field, this requires further investigation to prevent accentuations in inequitable implementation of precision oncology and differences in outcomes between different socio-demographic groups.
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.