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.
Keywords: US; cancer; decision-making; genomics; precision medicine; sequencing; tumor board.