Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26108897›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2015

Challenges to clinical utilization of hereditary cancer gene panel testing: perspectives from the front lines.

Rebecca K Marcus, Jennifer L Geurts, Jessica A Grzybowski, Kiran K Turaga, T Clark Gamblin, Kimberly A Strong, Fabian M Johnston

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary care.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2017
    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

7 authors.

Rebecca K MarcusDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Froedtert and The Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Jennifer L GeurtsDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Froedtert and The Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Jessica A GrzybowskiDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Froedtert and The Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Kiran K TuragaDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Froedtert and The Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
T Clark GamblinDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Froedtert and The Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Kimberly A StrongCenter for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Institute for Health and Society, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Fabian M JohnstonDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Froedtert and The Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. fjohnston@mcw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology is rapidly being implemented into clinical practice. Qualitative research was performed to gain an improved understanding of the landscape surrounding the use of NGS in cancer genetics. A focus group was conducted at the Wisconsin Cancer Risk Programs Network biannual meeting. Free flowing discussion with occasional open-ended questions provided insights into the use of NGS. 19 genetic counselors and medical professionals participated. Three major themes were identified with respect to NGS and its use in cancer genetics: knowledge gaps, the evolving clinician role, and uncertain utility. Several corresponding subthemes were identified. With respect to knowledge gaps, participants expressed concern regarding unexpected results and variants of unknown significance, lack of data about NGS findings, absence of standardization regarding use of NGS and guidelines for interpretation, and discomfort with new technology. Regarding the evolving clinician role, necessary changes to the roles of genetic counselors and physicians were noted, as was the resultant impact on care received by patients and their families. Finally, the clinical and economic utility of NGS was questioned. While a shift from traditional Sanger sequencing to NGS is occurring in molecular genetic testing for disease susceptibility, there are several obstacles that need to be overcome before widespread adoption of this technology can occur. Furthermore, key aspects of NGS and it utility remain unexplored. Continued investigation into these subjects is necessary before this technology will consistently be of benefit to patients and their families.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBiomarkers, TumorGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingGenome, HumanGerm-Line MutationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryRisk AssessmentBiomarkers, TumorAtttitudesGeneticistNext generation sequencingNGS guidelinesQualitative research

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.