Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28540621›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2017

Universal BRCA1/BRCA2 Testing for Ovarian Cancer Patients is Welcomed, but with Care: How Women and Staff Contextualize Experiences of Expanded Access.

Hannah Shipman, Samantha Flynn, Carey F MacDonald-Smith, James Brenton, Robin Crawford, Marc Tischkowitz, GTEOC Study Group, Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Germline and SomaticFrontiers in oncology · 2020
    Article
  7. A family pedigree of malignancies associated withHereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hannah ShipmanDepartment of Medical Genetics and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. shipmanh@hku.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2073-889X
Samantha FlynnChester Research Unit for the Psychology of Health (CRUPH), Department of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
Carey F MacDonald-SmithChester Research Unit for the Psychology of Health (CRUPH), Department of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
James BrentonCancer Services, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Robin CrawfordCancer Services, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Marc TischkowitzDepartment of Medical Genetics and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
GTEOC Study Group
Nicholas J Hulbert-WilliamsChester Research Unit for the Psychology of Health (CRUPH), Department of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
University of Chester · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBGlan Clwyd Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decreasing costs of genetic testing and advances in treatment for women with cancer with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations have heralded more inclusive genetic testing programs. The Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (GTEOC) Study, investigates the feasibility and acceptability of offering genetic testing to all women recently diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (universal genetic testing or UGT). Study participants and staff were interviewed to: (i) assess the impact of UGT (ii) integrate patients' and staff perspectives in the development of new UGT programs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve GTEOC Study participants and five members of staff involved in recruiting them. The transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. There are two super-ordinate themes: motivations and influences around offers of genetic testing and impacts of genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients. A major finding is that genetic testing is contextualized within the broader experiences of the women; the impact of UGT was minimized in comparison with the ovarian cancer diagnosis. Women who consent to UGT are motivated by altruism and by their relatives' influence, whilst those who decline are often considered overwhelmed or fearful. Those without a genetic mutation are usually reassured by this result, whilst those with a genetic mutation must negotiate new uncertainties and responsibilities towards their families. Our findings suggest that UGT in this context is generally acceptable to women. However, the period shortly after diagnosis is a sensitive time and some women are emotionally overburdened. UGT is considered a 'family affair' and staff must acknowledge this.

Indexed as

Genes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialOvarian NeoplasmsBRCA1BRCA2Genetic counselingInterpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA)OncologyOvarian cancerUK

Identifiers

PMID28540621
OpenAlexW2616896551

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.