Trial reportFamilial cancer2009
Genetic testing for BRCA1: effects of a randomised study of knowledge provision on interest in testing and long term test uptake; implications for the NICE guidelines.
Trial report in Familial cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Pooled it
- Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Impact of genomic literacy components on genetic testing decision-making in the general Japanese population in the 20s and 30s.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Efficacy of a web-based intelligent tutoring system for communicating genetic risk of breast cancer: a fuzzy-trace theory approach.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterest in searching for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is high. Knowledge regarding these genes and the advantages and limitations of genetic testing is limited. It is unknown whether increasing knowledge about breast cancer genetic testing alters interest in testing.
methodsThree hundred and seventy nine women (260 with a family history of breast cancer; 119 with breast cancer) from The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust were randomised to receive or not receive written educational information on cancer genetics. A questionnaire was completed assessing interest in BRCA1 testing and knowledge on breast cancer genetics and screening. Actual uptake of BRCA1 testing is reported with a six year follow-up.
resultsEighty nine percent of women at risk of breast cancer and 76% of women with breast cancer were interested in BRCA1 testing (P < 0.0001). Provision of educational information did not affect level of interest. Knowledge about breast cancer susceptibility genes was poor. According to the NICE guidelines regarding eligibility for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing, the families of 66% of the at risk group and 13% of the women with breast cancer would be eligible for testing (probability of BRCA1 mutation >or=20%). Within six years of randomisation, genetic testing was actually undertaken on 12 women, only 10 of whom would now be eligible, on the NICE guidelines.
conclusionsThere is strong interest in BRCA1 testing. Despite considerable ignorance of factors affecting the inheritance of breast cancer, education neither reduced nor increased interest to undergo testing. The NICE guidelines successfully triage those with a high breast cancer risk to be managed in cancer genetics clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18679829What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.