ArticleCancers2020
Population Study of Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction for Targeted Screening and Prevention.
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- A digital pathway for genetic testing in UK NHS patients with cancer: BRCA-DIRECT randomised study internal pilot.Journal of medical genetics · 2022Trial
- Uptake, utility and resource requirements of a genetic counselling telephone helpline within the BRCA-DIRECT digital pathway for mainstreamed BRCA testing in patients with breast cancer.Journal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Screening and prevention of ovarian cancer.The Medical journal of Australia · 2024Review
- Engagement of patients and the public in personalised prevention in Europe using genomic information: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Polygenic scores in cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2023Review
- Population-based genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes: quo vadis?BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023Article
- Interest in genetic testing and risk-reducing behavioral changes: results from a community health assessment in New York City.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Gynecologic Cancer Risk and Genetics: Informing an Ideal Model of Gynecologic Cancer Prevention.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Unselected Population Genetic Testing for Personalised Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction: A Qualitative Study Using Semi-Structured Interviews.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Special Issue "Gynaecological Cancers Risk: Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer and Endometrial Cancer".Cancers · 2022Article
- From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Machine learning to reveal an astute risk predictive framework for Gynecologic Cancer and its impact on women psychology: Bangladeshi perspective.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Article
- Germline BRCA 1-2 status prediction through ovarian ultrasound images radiogenomics: a hypothesis generating study (PROBE study).Scientific reports · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors at 11 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Unselected population-based personalised ovarian cancer (OC) risk assessment combining genetic/epidemiology/hormonal data has not previously been undertaken. We aimed to perform a feasibility study of OC risk stratification of general population women using a personalised OC risk tool followed by risk management. Volunteers were recruited through London primary care networks. INCLUSION CRITERIA: women ≥18 years. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: prior ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer, previous genetic testing for OC genes. Participants accessed an online/web-based decision aid along with optional telephone helpline use. Consenting individuals completed risk assessment and underwent genetic testing ( MAIN OUTCOMES: feasibility/acceptability, uptake, decision aid/telephone helpline use, satisfaction/regret, and impact on psychological health/quality of life. In total, 123 volunteers (mean age = 48.5 (SD = 15.4) years) used the decision aid, 105 (85%) consented. None fulfilled NHS genetic testing clinical criteria. OC risk stratification revealed 1/103 at ≥10% (high), 0/103 at ≥5%-<10% (intermediate), and 100/103 at <5% (low) lifetime OC risk. Decision aid satisfaction was 92.2%. The telephone helpline use rate was 13% and the questionnaire response rate at six months was 75%. Contrast tests indicated that overall depression (
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.