ArticleThe breast journal2020
Utilization of genetic testing in breast cancer treatment after implementation of comprehensive multi-disciplinary care.
Article in The breast journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The design, implementation, and effectiveness of intervention strategies aimed at improving genetic referral practices: a systematic review of the literature.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Reduced Breast and Ovarian Cancer Through Targeted Genetic Testing: Estimates Using the NEEMO Microsimulation Model.Cancers · 2024Article
- Breast Cancer Germline Genetic Counseling and Testing for Populations of African Heritage Globally: A Scoping Review on Research, Practice, and Bioethical Considerations.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Cisplatin +/- rucaparib after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative or BRCA mutated breast cancer.NPJ breast 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the utilization of genetic testing after implementing a comprehensive multi-disciplinary care (cMDC) program for breast cancer and to assess for racial disparities. This retrospective study included patients newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer 1 year before and 1 year after implementing a cMDC program to assess the rate of genetic referrals. Appropriate genetic referrals were defined by age, family history, triple-negative status, and personal history based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Secondary outcomes included rates of recommended testing, actual testing, compliance, and equity in genetic referrals across demographics (race, insurance type, and hospital site). Statistical analyses used the Fisher exact test or chi-square test. The 431 patients identified included 116 non-cMDC and 315 cMDC patients. Following implementation of cMDC, a significant increase occurred not only in appropriate genetic referrals (35.3%-55.5%) but also in inappropriate referrals (1.7%-15.5%) (P = .001). Overall attendance increased among both cohorts, Caucasians were more compliant with attending their genetic appointment compared to their African American counterparts (non-cMDC P = .025, cMDC P = .004). In the cMDC group, African Americans demonstrated a 6% increase in attendance compared to a 2% decrease among Caucasians. More appropriate genetic referrals were made to those with private insurance following implementation of cMDC. Utilizing a cMDC approach to breast cancer care may help increase appropriate utilization of genetics.
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.