↓ Skip to main content

Providing guidance for genomics-based cancer treatment decisions: insights from stakeholder engagement for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 2,006)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Providing guidance for genomics-based cancer treatment decisions: insights from stakeholder engagement for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0526-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Abe, Jennifer M. Lobo, Daniel M. Trifiletti, Timothy N. Showalter

Abstract

Despite the emergence of genomics-based risk prediction tools in oncology, there is not yet an established framework for communication of test results to cancer patients to support shared decision-making. We report findings from a stakeholder engagement program that aimed to develop a framework for using Markov models with individualized model inputs, including genomics-based estimates of cancer recurrence probability, to generate personalized decision aids for prostate cancer patients faced with radiation therapy treatment decisions after prostatectomy. We engaged a total of 22 stakeholders, including: prostate cancer patients, urological surgeons, radiation oncologists, genomic testing industry representatives, and biomedical informatics faculty. Slides were at each meeting to provide background information regarding the analytical framework. Participants were invited to provide feedback during the meeting, including revising the overall project aims. Stakeholder meeting content was reviewed and summarized by stakeholder group and by theme. The majority of stakeholder suggestions focused on aspects of decision aid design and formatting. Stakeholders were enthusiastic about the potential value of using decision analysis modeling with personalized model inputs for cancer recurrence risk, as well as competing risks from age and comorbidities, to generate a patient-centered tool to assist decision-making. Stakeholders did not view privacy considerations as a major barrier to the proposed decision aid program. A common theme was that decision aids should be portable across multiple platforms (electronic and paper), should allow for interaction by the user to adjust model inputs iteratively, and available to patients both before and during consult appointments. Emphasis was placed on the challenge of explaining the model's composite result of quality-adjusted life years. A range of stakeholders provided valuable insights regarding the design of a personalized decision aid program, based upon Markov modeling with individualized model inputs, to provide a patient-centered framework to support for genomic-based treatment decisions for cancer patients. The guidance provided by our stakeholders may be broadly applicable to the communication of genomic test results to patients in a patient-centered fashion that supports effective shared decision-making that represents a spectrum of personal factors such as age, medical comorbidities, and individual priorities and values.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 17%
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#790,379
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#21
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,085
of 317,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.