ReviewGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2013
Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications.
Review in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 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
57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey.BMC cancer · 2024Trial
- 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 · 2021Trial
- Communication Among Melanoma Family Members.Journal of health communication · 2017Trial
- The KinFact intervention - a randomized controlled trial to increase family communication about cancer history.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2014Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of genetic risk-stratified screening for breast cancer in Taiwan.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
- Predictive Genetic Testing in the Cancer Management and Prevention.Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics · 2025Article
- Ethics of early detection of disease risk factors: A scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Stakeholder Perception of the Implementation of Genetic Risk Testing for Twelve Multifactorial Diseases.Genes · 2023Article
- Ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic risk prediction for multifactorial disease: a narrative review identifying concerns about interpretation and use of polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Ethical layering in AI-driven polygenic risk scores-New complexities, new challenges.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Overlap of high-risk individuals predicted by family history, and genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction models: implications for risk stratification.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Risk-Adjusted Cancer Screening and Prevention (RiskAP): Complementing Screening for Early Disease Detection by a Learning Screening Based on Risk Factors.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Risk-stratified strategies in population screening for colorectal cancer.International journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Population genomic screening: Ethical considerations to guide age at implementation.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Article
- Clarifying the Trade-Offs of Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Utility of incorporating a gene-based lung cancer risk test on uptake and adherence in a community-based lung cancer screening pilot study.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Individual risk prediction and stratification based on polygenic profiling may be useful in disease prevention. Risk-stratified population screening based on multiple factors including a polygenic risk profile has the potential to be more efficient than age-stratified screening. In this article, we summarize the implications of personalized screening for breast and prostate cancers. We report the opinions of multidisciplinary international experts who have explored the scientific, ethical, and logistical aspects of stratified screening. We have identified (i) the need to recognize the benefits and harms of personalized screening as compared with existing screening methods, (ii) that the use of genetic data highlights complex ethical issues including discrimination against high-risk individuals by insurers and employers and patient autonomy in relation to genetic testing of minors, (iii) the need for transparency and clear communication about risk scores, about harms and benefits, and about reasons for inclusion and exclusion from the risk-based screening process, and (iv) the need to develop new professional competences and to assess cost-effectiveness and acceptability of stratified screening programs before implementation. We conclude that health professionals and stakeholders need to consider the implications of incorporating genetic information in intervention strategies for health-care planning in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.