Evaluating Oncologists' Communication Strategies Regarding Molecular Testing and Immunotherapy

PURPOSE: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), testing for mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) can identify patients who will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Communication regarding molecular testing and ICI is challenging, with studies demonstrating that oncologists have varied knowledge of genomic testing and frequently use technical jargon, and patient understanding is poor. We aimed to characterize discussions of molecular testing and ICIs to identify effective communication strategies. METHODS: We conducted an observational qualitative study from 2022 to 2023. We recruited US medical oncologists who treat colon cancer. Oncologists participated in recorded telehealth encounters with standardized patients with dMMR mCRC who were referred to discuss treatment. NVivo QSR 14 was used for transcription and code identification via content analysis. RESULTS: The study included 107 oncologists at 42 institutions across 27 US states who were contacted via email, and 21 (20%) participated. The median age was 41 years, 43% were female, and 33% were non-White. Average encounter duration was 44 minutes 5 seconds. The conversation structure was similar, but descriptions differed. MMR was described using variable terms, most commonly mutation (8/21) and protein loss (8/21). Almost all (20/21) oncologists discussed ICI, and over half (11/20) explained the mechanism. A minority of oncologists (5/21) reported response rates to immunotherapy (30%-70%) and informed of severe side effects. Oncologists uncommonly discussed next-generation sequencing (6/21), while over half (13/21) discussed germline testing. CONCLUSION: This nationwide sample of oncologists used variable descriptions when discussing MMR and ICI, as evidenced by the use of technical jargon and inconsistent inclusion of key topics, including the likelihood of response and severe adverse events. The use of a structured framework could help oncologists communicate key information to patients more effectively.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/op-26-00098
Primary Topic
Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating Oncologists' Communication Strategies Regarding Molecular Testing and Immunotherapy

M. D. Matthews, Jennifer M. Weiss, N Loconte, Monica Patel et al.
JCO Oncology Practice
Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
article

Evaluating Oncologists' Communication Strategies Regarding Molecular Testing and Immunotherapy

M. D. Matthews, Jennifer M. Weiss, N Loconte, Monica Patel, M L Gallagher, Narjust Florez, Bonyan Qudah, Toby C. Campbell, Samantha Vuong
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), testing for mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) can identify patients who will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Communication regarding molecular testing and ICI is challenging, with studies demonstrating that oncologists have varied knowledge of genomic testing and frequently use technical jargon, and patient understanding is poor. We aimed to characterize discussions of molecular testing and ICIs to identify effective communication strategies. METHODS: We conducted an observational qualitative study from 2022 to 2023. We recruited US medical oncologists who treat colon cancer. Oncologists participated in recorded telehealth encounters with standardized patients with dMMR mCRC who were referred to discuss treatment. NVivo QSR 14 was used for transcription and code identification via content analysis. RESULTS: The study included 107 oncologists at 42 institutions across 27 US states who were contacted via email, and 21 (20%) participated. The median age was 41 years, 43% were female, and 33% were non-White. Average encounter duration was 44 minutes 5 seconds. The conversation structure was similar, but descriptions differed. MMR was described using variable terms, most commonly mutation (8/21) and protein loss (8/21). Almost all (20/21) oncologists discussed ICI, and over half (11/20) explained the mechanism. A minority of oncologists (5/21) reported response rates to immunotherapy (30%-70%) and informed of severe side effects. Oncologists uncommonly discussed next-generation sequencing (6/21), while over half (13/21) discussed germline testing. CONCLUSION: This nationwide sample of oncologists used variable descriptions when discussing MMR and ICI, as evidenced by the use of technical jargon and inconsistent inclusion of key topics, including the likelihood of response and severe adverse events. The use of a structured framework could help oncologists communicate key information to patients more effectively.

JCO Oncology Practice
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US), Harvard University (US), University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (US), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.