ArticleThe Hastings Center report2019
Psychosocial Effects of Multigene Panel Testing in the Context of Cancer Genomics.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Schoolhouse risk: Can we mitigate the polygenic Pygmalion effect?Acta psychologica · 2024Trial
- Developing the MyCancerGene Digital Health Portal to Improve Patients' Understanding of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results: Development, User, and Usability Testing Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Psychological distress following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Test-takers' perspectives on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Article
- Risk-reducing mastectomy decisions among women with mutations in high- and moderate- penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Review
- Comprehension of skin cancer genetic risk feedback in primary care patients.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, with both the development of next-generation sequencing approaches and the Supreme Court decision invalidating gene patents, declining costs have contributed to the emergence of a new model of hereditary cancer genetic testing. Multigene panel testing (or multiplex testing) involves using next-generation sequencing technology to determine the sequence of multiple cancer-susceptibility genes. In addition to high-penetrance cancer-susceptibility genes, multigene panels frequently include genes that are less robustly associated with cancer predisposition. Scientific understanding about associations between many specific moderate-penetrance gene variants and cancer risks is incomplete. The emergence of multigene panel tests has created unique challenges that may have meaningful psychosocial implications. Contrasted with the serial testing process, wherein patients consider the personal and clinical implications of each evaluated gene, with multigene panel testing, patients provide broad consent to whichever genes are included in a particular panel and then, after the test, receive in-depth genetic counseling to clarify the distinct implications of their specific results. Consequently, patients undergoing multigene panel testing may have a less nuanced understanding of the test and its implications, and they may have fewer opportunities to self-select against the receipt of particular types of genetic-risk information. Evidence is conflicting regarding the emotional effects of this 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.