Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25722743›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2015

Development of cancer genetic services in the UK: A national consultation.

Ingrid Slade, Daniel Riddell, Clare Turnbull, Helen Hanson, Nazneen Rahman, MCG programme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Hereditary genetic testing and mainstreaming: a guide for surgeons.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Cascading After Peridiagnostic Cancer Genetic Testing: An Alternative to Population-Based Screening.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Evaluation of a Streamlined Oncologist-Led BRCA Mutation Testing and Counseling Model for Patients With Ovarian Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018
    Observational
  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

6 authors.

Ingrid SladeThe Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG UK ; The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF UK ; Centre for Personalised Medicine, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, St Anne's College, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6HS UK.
Daniel RiddellThe Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG UK.
Clare TurnbullThe Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG UK ; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT UK.
Helen HansonThe Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG UK ; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT UK.
Nazneen RahmanThe Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG UK ; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT UK.
MCG programme

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700491Wellcome Trust 098518
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological advances in DNA sequencing have made gene testing fast and affordable, but there are challenges to the translation of these improvements for patient benefit. The Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) programme is exploiting advances in DNA sequencing to develop the infrastructure, processes and capabilities required for cancer gene testing to become routinely available to all those that can benefit.

methodsThe MCG programme held a consultation day to discuss the development of cancer genetics with senior representation from all 24 UK cancer genetic centres. The current service landscape and capacity for expansion was assessed through structured questionnaires. Workshop discussion addressed the opportunities and challenges to increasing cancer gene testing in the National Health Service (NHS).

resultsServices vary with respect to population served and models of service delivery, and with respect to methods and thresholds for determining risk and testing eligibility. Almost all centres want to offer more cancer gene testing (82%) and reported increasing demand for testing from non-genetic clinical colleagues (92%). Reported challenges to increasing testing include the complexity of interpreting the resulting genetic data (79%), the level of funding and complexity of commissioning (67%), the limited capacity of current processes and cross-disciplinary relationships (38%), and workforce education (29%).

conclusionsPriorities to address include the development and evaluation of models of increasing access to gene testing, the optimal process for interpretation of large-scale genetic data, implementation of appropriate commissioning and funding processes, and achieving national consistency. The UK cancer genetics community have high expertise and strong commitment to maximising scientific advances for improved patient benefit and should be pivotally involved in the implementation of increased cancer gene testing.

Identifiers

PMID25722743
PMCPMC4341881

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.