ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2017
Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04533555 (Randomized Trial of Universal vs. Guideline-directed Germline Testing Among Young Adults With Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 140 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Randomized Trial of Universal vs. Guideline-directed Germline Testing Among Young Adults With Cancer
Who cites it
140 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How variants of uncertain significance affect clinical decisions: A systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Pooled it
- Evidence-based advancements in breast cancer genetic counseling: a review.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical management among individuals with variant of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Mainstreaming genetics and genomics: a systematic review of the barriers and facilitators for nurses and physicians in secondary and tertiary care.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Pooled it
- Genetic Testing for All Breast Cancer Patients: The GET FACTS Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Video Education Is an Acceptable Alternative to Pretest Genetic Counseling for Patients With Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Results From a Randomized Study.JCO oncology practice · 2025Trial
- Breast Conservation After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Surgical Results From the BrighTNess Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA surgery · 2020Trial
- Randomized trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling versus usual care for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2018Trial
- Updated ENIGMA recommendations for reporting germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes and their translation into twenty languages.Journal of medical genetics · 2026Article
- Preoperative Germline Genetic Testing and Surgical Timing in Breast Cancer: Implementation of National Reimbursement Programs: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Real-World Eligibility for Germline Multigene Panel Testing in Breast Cancer: An Evaluation of Current Testing Criteria.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Patient Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
- BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: Perceptions of endometrial cancer risk.Gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Impact of variants of uncertain significance on decision making about genetic testing for Hispanic males.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Review
- Exploring the role of germline genetic testing in surgical decision making for early-stage invasive breast cancer: insights from a safety-net hospital.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Understanding Patient Decision-Making in Breast Cancer Surgery: Risk Perception, Communication, and Psychosocial Influences.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Genetic testing for breast cancer risk is evolving rapidly, with growing use of multiple-gene panels that can yield uncertain results. However, little is known about the context of such testing or its impact on treatment. Methods A population-based sample of patients with breast cancer diagnosed in 2014 to 2015 and identified by two SEER registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) were surveyed about genetic testing experiences (N = 3,672; response rate, 68%). Responses were merged with SEER data. A patient subgroup at higher pretest risk of pathogenic mutation carriage was defined according to genetic testing guidelines. Patients' attending surgeons were surveyed about genetic testing and results management. We examined patterns and correlates of genetic counseling and testing and the impact of results on bilateral mastectomy (BLM) use. Results Six hundred sixty-six patients reported genetic testing. Although two thirds of patients were tested before surgical treatment, patients without private insurance more often experienced delays. Approximately half of patients (57% at higher pretest risk, 42% at average risk) discussed results with a genetic counselor. Patients with pathogenic mutations in BRCA1/2 or another gene had the highest rates of BLM (higher risk, 80%; average risk, 85%); however, BLM was also common among patients with genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUS; higher risk, 43%; average risk, 51%). Surgeons' confidence in discussing testing increased with volume of patients with breast cancer, but many surgeons (higher volume, 24%; lower volume, 50%) managed patients with BRCA1/2 VUS the same as patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations. Conclusion Many patients with breast cancer are tested without ever seeing a genetic counselor. Half of average-risk patients with VUS undergo BLM, suggesting a limited understanding of results that some surgeons share. These findings emphasize the need to address challenges in personalized communication about genetic testing.
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.