ArticleJAMA surgery2018
Association of Attending Surgeon With Variation in the Receipt of Genetic Testing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.
Article in JAMA surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Is Genetic Testing of HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Implemented into Clinical Practice? A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Surgeon Factors Influencing Breast Surgery Outcomes: A Scoping Review to Define the Modern Breast Surgical Oncologist.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Analyzing Precision Medicine Utilization with Real-World Data: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Multiple imputation with missing data indicators.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021Article
- Information Sources Used by Oncologists to Understand Multi-marker Tumor Panel Tests for Cancer Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- Survey on Physicians' Knowledge and Training Needs in Genetic Counseling in Germany.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Genetic testing and surgical treatment after breast cancer diagnosis: Results from a national online cohort.Journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Surgeon and medical oncologist peer network effects on the uptake of the 21-gene breast cancer recurrence score assay.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Association of Germline Genetic Testing Results With Locoregional and Systemic Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2020Article
- A brief history of human disease genetics.Nature · 2020Review
- The Time for Mainstreaming Germline Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer Is Now.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019Article
- Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019Article
- GP attitudes to and expectations for providing personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2019Article
- Rewording in Discussion for Clarification.JAMA surgery · 2019Article
- Knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and barriers pertaining to genetic literacy among surgeons: a scoping review.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer is common, but little is known about the influence of the surgeon on the variation in testing. Objectives: To quantify and explain the association of attending surgeon with rates of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based study identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated between July 1, 2013, and August 31, 2015, through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries for the state of Georgia, as well as Los Angeles County, California. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Also surveyed were 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study examined the association of surgeon with variation in the receipt of genetic testing using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and genetic testing data obtained from 4 laboratories. Results: In total, 5080 women (69.6%) of 7303 who were eligible (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [0.8] years) and 377 surgeons (77.3%) of 488 (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [10.7] years) responded to the survey. Approximately one-third (34.5% [1350 of 3910] of patients had an elevated risk of mutation carriage, and 27.0% (1056 of 3910) overall had genetic testing. Surgeons had practiced a mean (SE) of 20.9 (0.6) years, and 28.9% (107 of 370) treated more than 50 cases of new breast cancer per year. The odds of a patient receiving genetic testing increased more than 2-fold (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.85-3.31) if she saw a surgeon with an approach 1 SD above that of a surgeon with the mean test rate. Approximately one-third (34.1%) of the surgeon variation was explained by patient volume and surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling. If a patient with higher pretest risk saw a surgeon at the 5th percentile of the surgeon distribution, she would have a 26.3% (95% CI, 21.9%-31.2%) probability of testing compared with 72.3% (95% CI, 66.7%-77.2%) if she saw a surgeon at the 95th percentile. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the attending surgeon was associated with the receipt of genetic testing after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variation in surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling may explain a substantial amount of this association.
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.