ArticleClinical genetics2016
Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.
Article in Clinical genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of preferences for additional findings from genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Pooled it
- Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Pooled it
- How women respond to uncertainty in the context of genetic screening: A qualitative analysis framed by the uncertainty tolerance model.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- The Frequency and Reclassification of Variants Uncertain Significance in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Among Levantine Patients.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- Associations between subjective social status and predictors of interest in genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Investigation of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing and expanded carrier screening among women of reproductive age.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Previvorship Posting: Why Breast Cancer Previvors Share Their Stories on Social Media.Health communication · 2023Article
- Research Participants' Preferences for Individual Results of Pharmacogenomics Research: A Case of a Ugandan HIV Research Institute.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023Article
- The influence of expanded carrier screening in assisted reproductive techniques: changed the 'game'- review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Article
- Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Ethical concerns relating to genetic risk scores for suicide.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2021Article
- A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings.BMC medical genomics · 2021Article
- Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2021Article
- Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results.Patient education and counseling · 2021Article
- Article
- Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While experts have made recommendations, information is needed regarding what genome sequencing results patients would want returned. We investigated what results women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age would want returned and why. We conducted 60 semi-structured, in-person individual interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. We examined interest in six types of incidental findings and reasons for interest or disinterest in each type. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. Most participants were at least somewhat interested in all six result types, but strongest interest was in actionable results (i.e. variants affecting risk of a preventable or treatable disease and treatment response). Reasons for interest varied between different result types. Some participants were not interested or ambivalent about results not seen as currently actionable. Participants wanted to be able to choose what results are returned. Participants distinguished between types of individual genome sequencing results, with different reasons for wanting different types of information. The findings suggest that a focus on actionable results can be a common ground for all stakeholders in developing a policy for returning individual genome sequencing results.
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.