The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Access to Personalized Medicine: Factors Influencing the Use and Value of Gene Expression Profiling in Breast Cancer Treatment
Open accessAbstract
Genomic information is increasingly being used to personalize health care. One example is gene expression profiling (gep) tests, which estimate recurrence risk to inform chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer. Recently, gep tests were publicly funded in Ontario. We explored the perceived utility of gep tests, focusing on the factors influencing their use and value in treatment decision-making by patients and oncologists. Methods: We conducted interviews with oncologists (n = 14) and interviews and a focus group with early-stage breast cancer patients (n = 28) who underwent gep testing. Both groups were recruited through oncology clinics in Ontario. Data were analyzed using the content analysis and constant comparison techniques. Results: Narratives from patients and oncologists provided insights into various factors facilitating and restricting access to gep. First, oncologists are positioned as gatekeepers of gep, providing access in medically appropriate cases. However, varying perceptions of appropriateness led to perceived inequities in access and negative impacts on the doctor–patient relationship. Second, media attention facilitated patient awareness of gep, but also complicated gatekeeping. Third, the dedicated administration attached to gep was burdensome and led to long waits for results and also to increased patient anxiety and delayed treatment. Collectively, because of barriers to access, those factors inadvertently heightened the perceived value of gep for patients relative to other prognostic indicators. Conclusions: Our study delineates the factors facilitating and restricting access to gep, and highlights the roles of media and organization of services in the perceived value and utilization of gep. The results identify a need for administrative changes and practice guidelines to support streamlined and standardized use of gep tests.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
According to professionals, another reason for the growing complexity of the discussions is the increasing presence of PM in the media.
“According to the professionals, another reason for the growing complexity of the discussions is the increasing presence of PM in the media.”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
Some doctors feel that increased media attention means discussions and decisions on testing are becoming more complicated and that they sometimes feel forced to order a test.
“Some doctors feel that this increased media attention means discussions and decisions on testing are becoming more complicated and that they sometimes feel forced to order a test [26].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
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 [26]
From the patient perspective, inequalities in access to PM can put a negative strain on the doctor-patient relationship, for example, the patient knows about this option but their doctor has not offered it to them.
“From the patient perspective, inequalities in access to PM can put a negative strain on the doctor-patient relationship, for example, the patient knows about this option but their doctor has not offered it to them [26].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
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
- Bombard, Y., Rozmovits, L., Trudeau, M., Leighl, N. B., Deal, K., & Marshall, D. A.
- Affiliations
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Bombard, Y.
- Venue
- Current Oncology
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2014-06-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 426-433
- ISSN
- 1198-0052 (ISSN-L)
- 1718-7729
- PMC
- PMC4059806
- OpenAlex
- W2111465038
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 1.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- Current Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Cancer Care Ontario
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
- Government of Ontario
- Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
- Canada Research Chairs
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- gene expression profiling, breast cancer, gatekeeping, oncologists, patient perspectives, perceived value, recurrence risk, chemotherapy decision-making, media attention, waiting time, physician-patient relationship, health equity, Ontario
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