Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26454646›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2016

Genetic Counselors' Experiences Regarding Communication of Reproductive Risks with Autosomal Recessive Conditions found on Cancer Panels.

Sarah Mets, Rebecca Tryon, Patricia McCarthy Veach, Heather A Zierhut

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Multi-ethnic heterozygote frequencies of cancer susceptibility genes to inform counseling of reproductive risk.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  3. Genetic Counseling Clinic at AIIMS (New Delhi).Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2021
    Article
  4. Carrier testing for autosomal recessive disorders: a look at current practice in Germany.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah MetsDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, & Development, University of Minnesota, 321 Church Street, 6-160 Jackson Hall, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Rebecca TryonFairview Health Services, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Patricia McCarthy VeachDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Heather A ZierhutDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, & Development, University of Minnesota, 321 Church Street, 6-160 Jackson Hall, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. zier0034@umn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of hereditary cancer genetic testing panels has altered genetic counseling practice. Mutations within certain genes on cancer panels pose not only a cancer risk, but also a reproductive risk for autosomal recessive conditions such as Fanconi anemia, constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome, and ataxia telangiectasia. This study aimed to determine if genetic counselors discuss reproductive risks for autosomal recessive conditions associated with genes included on cancer panels, and if so, under what circumstances these risks are discussed. An on-line survey was emailed through the NSGC list-serv. The survey assessed 189 cancer genetic counselors' experiences discussing reproductive risks with patients at risk to carry a mutation or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a gene associated with both an autosomal dominant cancer risk and an autosomal recessive syndrome. Over half (n = 82, 55 %) reported having discussed reproductive risks; the remainder (n = 66, 45 %) had not. Genetic counselors who reported discussing reproductive risks primarily did so when patients had a positive result and were of reproductive age. Reasons for not discussing these risks included when a patient had completed childbearing or when a VUS was identified. Most counselors discussed reproductive risk after obtaining results and not during the informed consent process. There is inconsistency as to if and when the discussion of reproductive risks is taking place. The wide variation in responses suggests a need to develop professional guidelines for when and how discussions of reproductive risk for autosomal recessive conditions identified through cancer panels should occur with patients.

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsCommunicationReproductive BehaviorRisk AssessmentAdultFemaleGenes, NeoplasmGenes, RecessiveGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutationNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryAtaxia telangiectasiaCancer genetic counselingCancer panelsCancer riskConstitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndromeFanconi anemiaReproductive risk

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.