Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 25.
Published in final edited form as: JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Jan 22;3:10.1200/po.18.00176. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00176

Table A2.

Sensitivity analyses for the relationship between participant demographics and understanding of the purpose of research tumor profiling (“unsure” responses excluded). Values within the table represent frequencies (row percentages).*

Basic understanding (N=33) Comprehensive understanding (N=26)
Characteristics of survey respondents N (%) P value N (%) P value

19/33 (58%) 16/26 (62%)

Age 0.27 0.99
 ≥40 14 (67) 12 (63)
 <40 5 (42) 4 (57)
Sex 0.72 0.66
 Male 6 (50) 4 (50)
 Female 13 (62) 12 (67)
Education 0.03 0.19
 College graduate and higher 15 (75) 13 (72)
 Less than college graduate 4 (31) 3 (38)
Race/ethnicity 0.30 0.42
 White, non-Hispanic 12 (67) 11 (69)
 Non-white or Hispanic 7 (47) 5 (50)
Experience with genetics and/or genetic testing 0.46 0.37
 No 5 (45) 3 (43)
 Yes 14 (64) 13 (68)
Genetic knowledge* 0.02 0.16
 Low genetic knowledge 3 (30) 2 (33)
 High genetic knowledge 16 (76) 14 (70)
Survey completed by 0.11 0.99
 Parent/guardian 17 (65) 14 (61)
 Patient 2 (29) 2 (67)

Characteristics of patients

Participant-reported health status 1.00 0.42
 Excellent/very good 11 (55) 10 (56)
 Good/fair/poor 8 (62) 6 (75)
Participant-reported likelihood of cure 0.16 0.25
 ≥60% chance 8 (44) 7 (50)
 <60% chance 11 (73) 9 (75)
Receiving treatment at time of survey completion 0.29 0.23
 No 10 (71) 10 (77)
 Yes 9 (47) 6 (46)
Received iCat treatment recommendation 0.99 0.64
 No 15 (58) 13 (65)
 Yes 4 (57) 3 (50)
Received targeted treatment 0.99 0.99
 No 18 (56) 15 (60)
 Yes 1 (100) 1 (100)

Respondent attitudes about iCat study

Understanding of iCat information 0.09 0.22
 Poor self-reported understanding 10 (77) 8 (80)
 Good self-reported understanding 9 (45) 8 (50)
Helpfulness of participating in iCat study 0.30 0.23
 Not helpful to myself/my child 11 (69) 10 (77)
 Helpful 8 (47) 6 (46)
*

For the analysis of “basic understanding,” genetic knowledge was unknown for 2 participants