ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2017
Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing in an Era of Rapid Change.
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 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection rates of multigene panel and exome testing in patients with previous negative BRCA1/2 results.Familial cancer · 2025Article
- Psychological distress following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Germline BRCA testing in Denmark following invasive breast cancer: Progress since 2000.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Observational
- Patient decisions regarding cancer gene panel testing: An exploratory study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Uptake of genetic counseling and multi-gene panel testing among women in the Intermountain West with previous negative BRCA1 and BRCA2 results contacted for updated testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
- Laboratory business models and practices: implications for availability and access to germline genetic testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Current Testing Guidelines: A Retrospective Analysis of a Community-Based Hereditary Cancer Program.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2021Article
- Population Genomic Screening for Genetic Etiologies of Neurodevelopmental/Psychiatric Disorders Demonstrates Personal Utility and Positive Participant Responses.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2021Article
- Molecular Features and Clinical Management of Hereditary Gynecological Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Pathology of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Mutation Rates in Cancer Susceptibility Genes in Patients With Breast Cancer With Multiple Primary Cancers.JCO precision oncology · 2020Article
- Familial/inherited cancer syndrome: a focus on the highly consanguineous Arab population.NPJ genomic medicine · 2020Review
- Genetic testing and eHealth usage among Deaf women.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019Article
- Observational
- Evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA-associated gynaecologic malignancies: a Canadian multisociety roadmap.Journal of medical genetics · 2018Review
- High-Risk Palliative Care Patients' Knowledge and Attitudes about Hereditary Cancer Testing and DNA Banking.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Observational
- Problems of Unknown Significance: Counseling in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing.Balkan journal of medical genetics : BJMG · 2018Article
- Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Clinical Multigene Panel Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in the Multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study.JCO precision oncology · 2018Article
- The impact of hereditary cancer gene panels on clinical care and lessons learned.Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impacts of the Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Supreme Court decision regarding patenting DNA segments and multi-gene testing on cancer genetic counseling practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess genetic counselors' perceptions of how their genetic testing-related practices for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) changed after these events. One-hundred fifty-two genetic counselors from the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group completed an anonymous, online, mixed-methods survey in November 2013. The survey presented four hypothetical patients and asked about changes in testing practice. Across the vignettes, a majority of participants reported specific changes in testing decisions following Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad and availability of multi-gene testing. Ninety-three percent of participants reported changing the types of first- and second-line tests they order for HBOC; the degree of change varied geographically. Qualitative analysis indicated that some counselors have altered the counseling session content, trading depth of information for breadth and spending more time counseling about uncertainty. This study shows that cancer genetic counselors are adapting quickly to genetic testing changes, but with wide variability. Findings suggest future research to elucidate clinicians' and patients' preferences for guidance on the clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28434142What 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.