Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23392000›Full record

Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2013

Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors.

Karen Glanz, Kathryn Volpicelli, Peter A Kanetsky, Michael E Ming, Lynn M Schuchter, Christopher Jepson, Susan M Domchek, Katrina Armstrong

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pancreatic cancer and melanoma related perceptions and behaviors following disclosure of CDKN2A variant status as a research result.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karen GlanzPerelman School of Medicine and School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, 801 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. kglanz@upenn.edu
Kathryn Volpicelli
Peter A Kanetsky
Michael E Ming
Lynn M Schuchter
Christopher Jepson
Susan M Domchek
Katrina Armstrong
University of Pennsylvania Health System · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHELLEY L BERGER · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
Comparative Effectiveness in Genomic MedicineUC2CA148310 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ARMSTRONG, KATRINA · 2009 to 2010
$4.0M
NCI NIH HHS 5UC2CA148310-02NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520NCI NIH HHS UC2 CA148310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the impact of knowledge of CDKN2A and MC1R genotype on melanoma prevention behaviors like sun avoidance and skin examination in the context of familial melanoma.

methodsSeventy-three adults with a family history of melanoma were randomly assigned to be offered individualized CDKN2A and MC1R genotyping results in the context of a genetic counseling session, or the standard practice of not being offered counseling or disclosure of genotyping results. Mixed effects or longitudinal logistic models were used to determine whether the intervention affected change in sun protection habits, skin examinations, and perception and beliefs related to melanoma risk, prevention, and genetic counseling.

resultsAll participants in the intervention group who attended genetic counseling sessions chose to receive their test results. From baseline to follow-up, participants in the intervention group reported an increase in the frequency of skin self-examinations compared with a slight decrease in the control group (P = 0.002). Participants in the intervention group reported a smaller decrease in frequency of wearing a shirt with long sleeves than did participants in the control group (P = 0.047). No effect of the intervention was noted for other outcomes.

conclusionsFeedback of CDKN2A and MC1R genotype among families without known pathogenic CDKN2A mutations does not seem to decrease sun protection behaviors. IMPACT: While disclosure of CDKN2A and MC1R genotype did not have negative effects on prevention, the benefits of communicating this information remain unclear. The small number of families who tested positive for CDKN2A mutations in this study is a limitation.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingGenetic TestingPatient ComplianceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16FemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16Receptor, Melanocortin, Type 1

Identifiers

PMID23392000
PMCPMC3617083
OpenAlexW2024418580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.