Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28357778›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2017

Impact of Panel Gene Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on Patients.

Heidi S Lumish, Hallie Steinfeld, Carrie Koval, Donna Russo, Elana Levinson, Julia Wynn, James Duong, Wendy K Chung

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
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 69 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. A scalable new model of germline cancer genomic care delivery: Assessing psychological outcomes.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Heidi S LumishCollege of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Hallie SteinfeldCollege of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Carrie KovalDivision of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Donna RussoDivision of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Elana LevinsonDivision of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Julia WynnDivision of Clinical Genetics, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
James DuongDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Wendy K ChungDepartments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Wkc15@columbia.edu.
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USColumbia University · USSt Nicholas Hospital · GB

Funding

The Brief Research in Aging and Interdisciplinary NeurosciencesT35AG044303 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Sachin Agarwal, Jennifer Jaie Manly · 2013 to 2026
$1.9M
NIA NIH HHS T35 AG044303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in next generation sequencing have enabled panel gene testing, or simultaneous testing for mutations in multiple genes for a clinical condition. With more extensive and widespread genetic testing, there will be increased detection of genes with moderate penetrance without established clinical guidelines and of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or genetic variants unknown to either be disease-causing or benign. This study surveyed 232 patients who underwent genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to examine the impact of panel gene testing on psychological outcomes, patient understanding, and utilization of genetic information. The survey used standardized instruments including the Impact of Event Scale (IES), Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), Satisfaction with Decision Instrument (SWD), Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (AT-20), genetics knowledge, and utilization of genetic test results. Study results suggested that unaffected individuals with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who received positive results were most significantly impacted by intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and distress. However, scores were also modestly elevated among unaffected patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer who received VUS, highlighting the impact of ambiguous results that are frequent among patients undergoing genetic testing with large panels of genes. Potential risk factors for increased genetic testing-specific distress in this study included younger age, black or African American race, Hispanic origin, lower education level, and lower genetic knowledge and highlight the need for developing strategies to provide effective counseling and education to these communities, particularly when genetic testing utilizes gene panels that more commonly return VUS. More detailed pre-test education and counseling may help patients appreciate the probability of various types of test results and how results would be used clinically, and allow them to make more informed decisions about the type of genetic testing to select.

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMedical OncologyMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsRisk FactorsBreast cancerCancer geneticsGenetic counselingGenetic testing for cancer susceptibilityHereditary breast and ovarian cancerMICRAPanel gene testing

Identifiers

PMID28357778
PMCPMC7250529
OpenAlexW2598515088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.