ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016
When knowledge of a heritable gene mutation comes out of the blue: treatment-focused genetic testing in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Consent for Genetic Testing Using an Oncologist- or Genetic Counselor-Mediated Model of Care.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Recommendations for Advancing the Diagnosis and Management of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Brazil.JCO global oncology · 2020Review
- Global Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetics Testing, Counselling and Management.World journal of surgery · 2019Review
- Article
- Psychological outcomes and surgical decisions after genetic testing in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer with and without a family history.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Patients' Views of Treatment-Focused Genetic Testing (TFGT): Some Lessons for the Mainstreaming of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selection of women for treatment-focused genetic testing (TFGT) following a new diagnosis of breast cancer is changing. Increasingly a patient's age and tumour characteristics rather than only their family history are driving access to TFGT, but little is known about the impact of receiving carrier-positive results in individuals with no family history of cancer. This study assesses the role of knowledge of a family history of cancer on psychosocial adjustment to TFGT in both women with and without mutation carrier-positive results. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 women who had undergone TFGT, and who had been purposively sampled to represent women both family history and carrier status, and subjected to a rigorous qualitative analysis. It was found that mutation carriers without a family history reported difficulties in making surgical decisions quickly, while in carriers with a family history, a decision regarding surgery, electing for bilateral mastectomy (BM), had often already been made before receipt of their result. Long-term adjustment to a mutation-positive result was hindered by a sense of isolation not only by those without a family history but also those with a family history who lacked an affected relative with whom they could identify. Women with a family history who had no mutation identified and who had not elected BM reported a lack of closure following TFGT. These findings indicate support deficits hindering adjustment to positive TFGT results for women with and without a family history, particularly in regard to immediate decision-making about risk-reducing surgery.
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.