Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29385580›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2018

Patient communication of cancer genetic test results in a diverse population.

Charité N Ricker, Rachel B Koff, Chenxu Qu, Julie Culver, Duveen Sturgeon, Kerry E Kingham, Katrina Lowstuter, Nicolette M Chun, Courtney Rowe-Teeter, Alexandra Lebensohn and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Genetic counseling and testing for Asian Americans: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors.

Charité N RickerUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Rachel B KoffStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Chenxu QuUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Julie CulverUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Duveen SturgeonUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kerry E KinghamStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Katrina LowstuterUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nicolette M ChunStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Courtney Rowe-TeeterStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Alexandra LebensohnStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Peter LevonianStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Katlyn PartynskiUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Karlena Lara-OteroStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Christine HongUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Iva M PetrovchichStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Meredith A MillsStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Anne-Renee HartmanMyriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Brian AllenMyriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Uri LadabaumStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Kevin McDonnellUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
James M FordStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Stephen B GruberUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Allison W KurianStanford University Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Gregory E IdosUSC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001855 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Thomas A Buchanan, Michele D. Kipke · 2016 to 2026
$81.3M
Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteKL2TR000131 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI BUCHANAN, THOMAS A · 2012 to 2015
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000131NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001855NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on the communication of genetic test results has focused predominately on non-Hispanic White (NHW) mutation-positive families with high-risk hereditary cancer conditions. Little is known about this process for racially and ethnically diverse individuals or for those with mutations in moderate risk genes. The communication behaviors of study participants who carry a gene mutation were analyzed 3 months after disclosure of genetic test results. Participants were queried about communication of their results, as part of a prospective study of multi-gene panel genetic testing. The responses of particpants who tested positive were analyzed by race/ethnicity and by level of cancer risk (high vs. moderate). Of the 216 mutation-positive study participants, 136 (63%) responded. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 46% NHW, 41% Hispanic, 10% Asian, and 2% Black. The majority (99.0%, n = 135) had shared their results with someone and 96% had told a family member (n = 130). Hispanic respondents were less likely to have told a healthcare provider about their results than NHW (29% vs. 68%, p < .0001). Asian respondents were less likely than NHW to encourage family members to undergo testing (OR = 0.1, p = .03); but Asian family members were more likely to undergo testing (OR = 8.0, p = .03). There were no differences in communication between those with a mutation in a high- or moderate-risk gene. Three months post genetic testing, communication of results was very high; 30% reported a family member underwent genetic testing. Further studies are needed to better understand the communication process in individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHealth CommunicationSocial BehaviorFamilyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasmsFamily communicationHereditary cancerMulti-gene panels

Identifiers

PMID29385580
PMCPMC6065549

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.