ArticleGynecologic oncology research and practice2019
Preferences of women with epithelial ovarian cancer for aspects of genetic testing.
Article in Gynecologic oncology research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 7 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for genetic testing among populations underrepresented in genomic research: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Pooled it
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled it
- Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Germline and Somatic Tumor Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Exploring willingness to pay out-of-pocket for genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients in Malaysia, a middle-income country in Asia.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Observational
- Physician knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic biomarker testing for the management of patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: an international physician survey.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Patient decisions regarding cancer gene panel testing: An exploratory study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Willingness to pay for an mRNA-based anti-cancer treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Article
- Conjoint Analysis: A Research Method to Study Patients' Preferences and Personalize Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Patient Satisfaction with Private Genetic Counselling for Familial Cancer in Western Australia: A Prospective Audit.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- "I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough genetic testing is recommended for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), little is known about patient preferences for various testing options. We measured relative preferences for attributes of testing in women with EOC referred for genetic counseling.
methodsSubjects were recruited to participate in a discrete-choice-experiment survey to elicit preferences for attributes of genetic testing: out-of-pocket cost ($0, $100, $250, or $1000), probability of a deleterious mutation (60, 80%, or 88%), probability of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result (5, 20%, or 40%), sample requirements (blood or saliva), and turn-around time (1, 2 or 4 weeks). Subjects viewed educational videos followed by a series of choices between pairs of constructed genetic tests with varying attribute levels. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels. Relative importance weights and money-equivalent values were calculated.
resultsNinety-four patients were enrolled; 68 (76.4%) presented for genetic counseling. Test cost was the most important attribute to subjects (importance weight = 41 out of 100) followed by probability to detect deleterious mutations (36) and probability of a VUS result (20). Sample requirements and turnaround time did not drive test choices. Subjects were willing to pay an additional $155 and $70 for incremental 5% improvements in the probability to detect deleterious mutations and probability of a VUS result. At genetics consultation, 55/68 (80.9%) subjects chose multigene testing.
conclusionsLow out-of-pocket cost, high probability of detecting deleterious mutations and high probability of a VUS result are preferred by patients with EOC considering genetic testing.
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.