Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20180951›Full record

ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2010

Is no news good news? Inconclusive genetic test results in BRCA1 and BRCA2 from patients and professionals' perspectives.

Audrey Ardern-Jones, Regina Kenen, Elly Lynch, Rebecca Doherty, Rosalind Eeles

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hereditary cancer in clinical practice, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Psychological aspects, risk and protective factors related to BRCA genetic testing: a review of the literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. "What does it mean?": uncertainties in understanding results of chromosomal microarray testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2012
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Audrey Ardern-Jones *The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, UK.
Regina Kenen *The College of New Jersey, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New Jersey, USA.
Elly LynchThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Surrey, UK.
Rebecca DohertyThe Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Rd, Surrey, UK.
Rosalind EelesThe Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Rd, Surrey, UK.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBCollege of New Jersey · USInstitute of Cancer Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen from families with a high risk of breast or ovarian cancer in which genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes is inconclusive are a vulnerable and understudied group. Furthermore, there are no studies of the professional specialists who treat them - geneticists, genetic counsellors/nurses, oncologists, gynaecologists and breast surgeons.

methodsWe conducted a small qualitative study that investigated women who had developed breast cancer under the age of 45 and who had an inconclusive BRCA1/2 genetic diagnostic test (where no mutations or unclassified variants were identified). We arranged three focus groups for affected women and their close female relatives - 13 women took part. We also interviewed 12 health professionals who were involved in the care of these women.

resultsThe majority of the women had a good grasp of the meaning of their own or a family member's inconclusive result, but a few indicated some misunderstanding. Most of the women in this study underwent the test for the benefit of others in the family and none mentioned that they were having the test purely for themselves. A difficult issue for sisters of affected women was whether or not to undertake prophylactic breast surgery. The professionals were sensitive to the difficulties in explaining an inconclusive result. Some felt frustrated that technology had not as yet provided them with a better tool for prediction of risk.

conclusionsSome of the women were left with the dilemma of what decision to make regarding medical management of their cancer risk. For the most part, the professionals believed that the women should be supported in whatever management decisions they considered best, provided these decisions were based on a complete and accurate understanding of the genetic test that had taken place in the family.

Identifiers

PMID20180951
PMCPMC2832891
OpenAlexW2134614258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.