Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24756768›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014

The evolution of cancer risk assessment in the era of next generation sequencing.

Heather Fecteau, Kristen J Vogel, Kristen Hanson, Shannon Morrill-Cornelius

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer: A 2022 Update.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022
    Review
  7. Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Providing Evidence of Predisposition Genes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Evaluation of Classic, Attenuated, and Oligopolyposis of the Colon.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. GENETIC DUTIES.William and Mary law review · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Heather FecteauThe Medical Center of Plano, 1600 Coit Rd Suite 204, Dallas, TX, USA, heather.fecteau@hcahealthcare.com.
Kristen J Vogel
Kristen Hanson
Shannon Morrill-Cornelius

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansInformed ConsentNeoplasmsRisk AssessmentSequence Analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.