ArticleFamilial cancer2013
Cancer family history triage: a key step in the decision to offer screening and genetic testing.
Article in Familial cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gender differences in self-reported family history of cancer: A review and secondary data analysis.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Matrix metalloproteinase 9 gene polymorphisms are associated with a multiple family history of gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2017Article
- Why do women not return family history forms when referred to breast cancer genetics services? A mixed-method study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Clinically relevant lessons from Family HealthLink: a cancer and coronary heart disease familial risk assessment tool.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Macmillan Cancer Family History Service in Teesside has provided genetic risk assessment for individuals with a personal or family history of cancer since 2004. We sought to examine the effect of risk assessment on patient management, with particular emphasis on referral for clinical screening and selection of families for tertiary genetics assessment. The degree of concordance between the initial risk assignment (using diagnoses reported by the family) and final risk assignment (using confirmed diagnoses) was no greater than 72.3 % in 1,363 breast cancer families; a similar effect was seen in 764 colorectal cancer families (77.3 %). Clinically important risk reassignment occurred at the three key stages in the risk assessment pathway. Overall, genetic risk was reassigned in almost 30 % of colorectal families and 20 % of breast cancer families, resulting in a change in screening recommendation and/or referral for tertiary genetic assessment. Careful, detailed family history assessment, with confirmation of reported diagnoses where it may affect risk assignment, is an important process for the point of view of patient management and resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23238844What 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.