The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Fuzzy World of Precision Medicine: Deliberations of a Precision Medicine Tumor Board
Open accessAbstract
AIM: To understand how a cancer precision medicine tumor board (CPM-TB) made choices about return of results. MATERIALS & METHODS: Observed CPM-TB deliberations and completed in-depth interviews with committee members. RESULTS: Responding to complex evidence of ambiguous significance, deliberations of the CPM-TB were predicated on analytic validity and clinical utility. Members had concerns both about potential harms due to returning results based on weak evidence and about withholding potentially meaningful results. Group dynamics and the clinical experiences of individual committee members shaped their work. CONCLUSION: Both scientific evidence and the social context surrounding deliberations of a CPM-TB influenced decisions about return of results. Subjective elements, while present in any scientific endeavor, may carry more weight in the face of ambiguous findings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Professionals and patients in some studies report psychological implications from knowing or while waiting for the test results.
“Besides these adverse events, professionals and patients in some studies report psychological implications from knowing [31, 32, 46, 51, 63, 113] or while waiting for the test results [26].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
In the Results section on implications for patients and families (page unavailable), tumor-board professionals worried that disclosing certain results could cause patients or families unnecessary psychological harm. The paper reports professionals’ concerns, not patients reporting psychological effects themselves; it also does not establish that those effects occurred. The separate claim about waiting for results is attached to citation [26], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHarm from test results or the testing process can occur if patients or professionals misinterpret the results and for this reason make the wrong therapeutic decision.
“This harm can occur, for example, if patients or professionals misinterpret the results [90] and for this reason make the wrong therapeutic decision [32, 92].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
Withholding test results may be useful in the future, but is an expression of "excessive paternalism".
“Withholding test results may be useful in the future, but is an expression of “excessive paternalism” [32].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
Many clinicians and researchers are well aware of the limited or ambiguous evidence for the meaning of test results and possible treatment outcomes and regard the lack of practice guidelines as a barrier for the implementation of tests.
“Many clinicians and researchers are well aware of the limited [27, 30, 31, 35, 42, 79, 84] or ambiguous evidence [32] for the meaning of test results and possible treatment outcomes and regard the lack of practice guidelines as a barrier for the implementation of tests [27, 79].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
In cancer PM the complexity and ambiguity of the evidence seems to make it difficult to decide which test results should be communicated to patients.
“For example, in cancer PM the complexity and ambiguity of the evidence seems to make it difficult to decide which test results should be communicated to patients [32].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 10.1056/NEJMsb1503104 · DOI
- 10.1080/14636778.2013.852010 · DOI
- 10.1038/nm0715-655 · DOI
- 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0405 · DOI
- 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003161 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.002 · DOI
- 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0184 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70087-5 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70232-7 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMoa0804385 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0158 · DOI
- 10.1200/JCO.2013.48.7215 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrg2841 · DOI
- 10.1002/humu.22536 · DOI
- 10.1038/gim.2011.78 · DOI
- 10.1002/humu.20880 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s13073-016-0333-9 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-genom-091212-153506 · DOI
- 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.4944 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMp1500523 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.04.011 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.2015.10080 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5699 · DOI
- 10.1038/gim.2015.207 · DOI
- 10.1177/1049732305285708 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.008 · DOI
- 10.1038/gim.2013.140 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.022 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00333.x · DOI
- Stark L . Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research . The University of Chicago Press , Chicago, IL, USA ( 2012 ).
- 10.1200/JOP.2012.000626 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0306312714559323 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.014 · DOI
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
Metadata
- Authors
- McGraw, S. A., Garber, J., Jänne, P. A., Lindeman, N., Oliver, N., Sholl, L. M., Van Allen, E. M., Wagle, N., Garraway, L. A., Joffe, S., & Gray, S. W.
- Affiliations
- Hastings Center (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
- Broad Institute (US)
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
- City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- McGraw, Sarah A
- ORCID
- Venue
- Personalized Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-12-15
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-50
- ISSN
- 1741-0541 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-828X
- PMC
- PMC5480788
- OpenAlex
- W2563021288
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 2.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Personalized Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Human Genome Research Institute (U01HG006492, U01 HG007303)
- American Cancer Society (120529-MRSG-11-006-01-CPPB)
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (U01HG006492, U01 HG007303)
- Novartis and Pfizer
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Keywords
- precision medicine, multidisciplinary tumor board, return of results, clinical decision-making, analytic validity, clinical utility, group dynamics, cancer genomics
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
