Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28785836›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2018

Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing: Perspectives of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients and Gynecologic Oncology Healthcare Providers.

Margaret I Liang, Deanna H Wong, Christine S Walsh, Robin Farias-Eisner, Joshua G Cohen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The Knowledge and Attitude of Patients Diagnosed with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer towards Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Margaret I LiangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, CHS Room 27-139, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Deanna H WongDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, CHS Room 27-139, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Christine S WalshDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Robin Farias-EisnerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, CHS Room 27-139, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Joshua G CohenDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, CHS Room 27-139, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. JGCohen@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-gene panel testing has expanded the genetic information available to cancer patients. The objective was to assess provider behaviors and attitudes and patient knowledge and attitudes towards genetic counseling and testing. An online survey was distributed to Society of Gynecologic Oncology members and a written questionnaire was administered to patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer at a tertiary care referral center. Most of the 233 (18% response rate) provider respondents were gynecologic oncologists. Access to a genetic counselor was reported by 87% of providers and 55% deferred all testing to genetic counselors. Of 53 ovarian cancer patient respondents, two-thirds had previously seen a genetic counselor or undergone testing. Patients' attitudes about genetic counseling and/or testing were favorable with respect to themselves (70-81%) and their family members (94%). Less than 25% of patients indicated worrying about health care discrimination, lack of privacy, or high cost. Seventy-seven percent of patients demonstrated a desire to obtain genetic information even if the results were not currently actionable, and 20% of providers stated they test for only those genes with guideline-supported actionable results. Provider practice differences were identified in screening and prevention strategies for patients with deleterious non-BRCA mutations and variants of uncertain significance. The variation in clinical interpretation of results associated with poorly defined cancer risks signals a need for more comprehensive training and guidelines to ensure access to evidence-based care.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHealth PersonnelHumansMedical OncologyOvarian NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesGenetic counselingGenetic testingModerate penetrance geneOvarian cancerPanel testingVariant of uncertain significance

Identifiers

PMID28785836

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.