Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28127677›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2017

Lynch Syndrome Limbo: Patient Understanding of Variants of Uncertain Significance.

Ilana Solomon, Elizabeth Harrington, Gillian Hooker, Lori Erby, Jennifer Axilbund, Heather Hampel, Kara Semotiuk, Amie Blanco, William M P Klein, Francis Giardiello and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Patient experience of uncertainty in cancer genomics: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development and evaluation of INTFrontiers in oncology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

11 authors.

Ilana SolomonCity of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Rd., Duarte, CA, 91010, USA. isolomon@coh.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7565-2623
Elizabeth HarringtonStanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Gillian HookerNextDxGx, Franklin, TN, USA.
Lori ErbyNational Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Jennifer AxilbundInvitae, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Heather HampelThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Columbus, OH, USA.
Kara SemotiukMount Sinai Hospital Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Amie BlancoUniversity of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Treatment Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
William M P KleinBehavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Francis GiardielloJohns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Lori LeonardDepartment of Development Sociology, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

NHGRI/DIR Genetic Counseling Training ProgramZIEHG200353 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI ERBY, LORI · 2010 to 2025
$16.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Providers and patients encounter challenges related to the management of Variants of Unknown Significance (VUS). A VUS introduces new counseling dilemmas for the understanding and psychosocial impact of uncertain genetic test results. This descriptive study uses Mishel's theory of uncertainty in illness to explore the experience of individuals who have received a VUS as part of the genetic testing process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 adult individuals who received a VUS for Lynch syndrome mismatch repair genes between 2002 and 2013. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Most individuals recalled their result and perceived various types of uncertainty associated with their VUS. Half of the participants appraised their variant as a danger and implemented coping strategies to reduce the threat of developing cancer. Mobilizing strategies to reduce their risk included vigilant cancer surveillance, information seeking and notifying relatives. The majority of participants were unaware of the possibility of a VUS before receiving their result and expected reclassification over time. These results provide insight into the ways healthcare providers can support patients who receive VUS for Lynch syndrome. Findings also provide direction for future work that can further explicate the impact of receiving a VUS.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeUncertaintyAdultAgedColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedCancer geneticsHNPCCLynch syndromeUncertaintyVUS

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.