Closing Knowledge Gaps to Optimize Patient Outcomes and Advance Precision Medicine
Abstract
Realizing the promise of precision medicine requires patient engagement at the key decision points throughout the cancer journey. Previous research has shown that patients who make the “right” decisions, such as being treated at a high-volume academic medical center, for example, have better outcomes. An online survey was conducted to understand awareness of and barriers to these decision points among patients with multiple myeloma and pancreatic, lung, prostate, and metastatic breast cancers. Survey respondents were identified by 5 participating foundations (multiple myeloma: n = 86, pancreatic: n = 108, lung: n = 56, prostate: n = 50, metastatic breast: n = 86) and recruited by an e-mail or social media invitation. Descriptive analyses were calculated, and the proportion of patients from each of the 5 groups was compared for each response category for each survey item. Consistent gaps in knowledge and actions were identified across all cancers evaluated in terms of finding the right doctors/team at the right center; getting the right diagnostic testing done before beginning treatment; engaging in the right course of treatment, including clinical trials; and in sharing data. Improving awareness of and changing behavior around these 4 decision points will allow patients to receive better care and contribute to the advancement of precision medicine.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many patients generally have limited knowledge about precision medicine, genetic testing, and pharmacogenomics.
“However, as other studies have demonstrated, many patients generally have a limited knowledge about PM [65, 71, 99–102], genetic testing [62, 69, 95] and pharmacogenomics [73, 101] and also express difficulties in understanding [51].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [62]
Among patients there is also a high readiness to participate in trials and donate data or biospecimens.
“Among patients there is also a high readiness to participate in trials and donate data or biospecimens [62, 70, 72, 76, 77, 98, 99], but trust in professionals [98, 101], costs, receiving counseling about test results and privacy [101], as well as the donor’s religion and culture [98] seem to be important for the decision.”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [62]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erdmann, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Bozzaro, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Giusti, K., Young, A. Q., & Lehrhaupt, K.
- Affiliations
- Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (US)
- Kantar Health (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Giusti, Kathy
- Young, Anne Quinn
- Venue
- The Cancer Journal
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 144-151
- ISSN
- 1528-9117 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-336X
- OpenAlex
- W2803461443
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Cancer Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation
- National Cancer Institute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Keywords
- patient engagement, precision medicine, knowledge gaps, multiple myeloma, pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, metastatic breast cancer, clinical trial participation, diagnostic testing, data sharing, patient awareness
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Humans, Neoplasms, Precision Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review