Awareness, Understanding, and Adoption of Precision Medicine to Deliver Personalized Treatment for Patients With Cancer: A Multinational Survey Comparison of Physicians and Patients
Open accessAbstract
Background.: Two separate multinational surveys of oncologists and patients with cancer were conducted to assess the awareness and use of biomarkers in clinical practice. These data explore the self-reported and physician-assessed levels of patient cancer literacy and factors affecting physicians’ choice to use biomarkers in treatment decisions. Patients and Methods.: Interviews were conducted via telephone with patients and online with physicians. Physicians had 3–35 years of experience; were treating more than 15 patients/month; and specialized in breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Patients had received treatment for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer within the previous 5 years. Results.: Interviews with 895 physicians and 811 patients were completed. Most patients and physicians reported that patients understood that a tumor could be tested to determine what treatment would be most effective (78% and 73%, respectively) and that patients would be willing to participate in a personalized treatment plan. Whereas 85% of patients felt that they understood their treatment when it was explained to them, only 23% of doctors felt that their patients were always fully informed. Most physicians (90%) reported using biomarkers; among the 10% not performing biomarker analysis, the most cited obstacles were local availability, speed of obtaining results, and cost. Conclusion.: These data demonstrate wide global use of biomarker testing but with regional variations reflecting cultural and local practice. Self-reported and physician-assessed cancer literacy, although generally high, highlighted important regional variations and the need to provide patients with additional information.
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?
The willingness and interest to undergo precision medicine interventions and a positive attitude towards them is high among the majority of patients surveyed.
“The willingness and interest to undergo PM interventions and a positive attitude towards them is high among the majority of patients surveyed [29, 63, 65, 69, 73, 74, 77, 91–93].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Several quantitative studies indicate that patients want to be fully informed about tests, the results and treatment options.
“Several quantitative studies indicate that patients want to be fully informed about tests [71], the results [51, 71, 72, 78] and treatment options [29].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Patients wish to be involved in the decision-making process.
“Further, they wish to be involved in the decision-making process [29, 71].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Cites
Amado, R. G., Wolf, M., Peeters, M., Van Cutsem, E., Siena, S., Freeman, D. J., Juan, T., Sikorski, R., Suggs, S., Radinsky, R., et al. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.14.7116 · Cited by 3,207 · see citing works
Greaves, M., & Maley, C. C. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10762 · Cited by 3,162 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The current state of molecular testing in the treatment of patients with solid tumors, 2019
El‐Deiry, W. S., Goldberg, R. M., Lenz, H., Shields, A. F., Gibney, G. T., Tan, A. R., Brown, J., Eisenberg, B., Heath, E. I., Phuphanich, S., et al. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21560 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Erdmann, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Bozzaro, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Alharbi, A. A., Shaqran, T. M., Eltobgy, A. A. E., Albalawi, A. R., & Alnawmasi, W. S. (2019) · Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.3889/oamjms.2019.322 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ciardiello, F., Adams, R., Tabernero, J., Seufferlein, T., Taieb, J., Moiseyenko, V., Ma, B., Lopez, G., Vansteenkiste, J. F., Esser, R., & Tejpar, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
- Velindre Cancer Centre (GB)
- Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES)
- Universität Ulm (DE)
- e Department of Gastroenterology, Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France
- Institute of Oncology NN Petrov (RU)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- h Hospital Prof. Dr. Bernardo A. Houssay, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
- Merck KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Ciardiello, Fortunato
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Oncologist
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-02-17
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 292-300
- ISSN
- 1083-7159 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-490X
- PMC
- PMC4786350
- OpenAlex
- W2274419139
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 11.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Oncologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Merck KGaA
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
- Keywords
- precision medicine, precision oncology, biomarker testing, cancer literacy, patient awareness, physician awareness, patient-physician communication, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, regional variation in practice, patient participation in treatment decisions
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Breast Neoplasms, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Patients, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Biomarkers, Tumor, Colorectal Neoplasms, Health Literacy, 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