Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33468213›Full record

ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2021

Recontacting non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer patients for germline CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant testing: uptake and patient experiences.

Mary E Velthuizen, Rob B van der Luijt, Beja J de Vries, Marco J Koudijs, Eveline M A Bleiker, Margreet G E M Ausems

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hereditary cancer in clinical practice, 2021. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mary E VelthuizenDivision Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rob B van der LuijtDivision Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Beja J de VriesDivision Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marco J KoudijsDivision Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eveline M A BleikerDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Margreet G E M AusemsDivision Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.G.E.M.Ausems@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0305-3477

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCHEK2 has been recognized as a breast cancer risk gene with moderate effect. Women who have previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 gene germline pathogenic variant may benefit from additional genetic testing for the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the uptake of an active approach by recontacting BRCA1/2-negative women for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples and 2) to explore patients' experiences with this approach.

methodsBetween 2015 and 2017, women who had been tested earlier negative for BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants, were recontacted for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples, free-of-charge. They received an information letter about the CHEK2 pathogenic variant and could return an informed consent form when they opted for additional genetic testing. Those in whom the CHEK2 pathogenic variant was absent, received a letter describing this result. Those who tested positive, were invited for a personal counseling at the department of genetics. On average 21 months (range 4-27) after the genetic test result, a questionnaire was sent to all identified carriers and a control group of women who tested negative for the pathogenic variant to explore patients' experiences with our approach.

resultsIn total, 70% (N = 1666) of the N = 2377 women contacted opted for additional testing, and 66 (4%) of them proved to be carriers of the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. Regardless of the outcome of the genetic test, women were generally satisfied with our approach and reported that the written information was sufficient to make an informed decision about the additional CHEK2 testing.

conclusionsThe uptake (70%) of our approach was considered satisfactory. Patients considered the benefits more important than the psychosocial burden. Given the rapid developments in DNA-diagnostics, our findings may support future initiatives to recontact patients about additional genetic testing when they previously tested negative for a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer gene.

Indexed as

Breast cancer riskCHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variantRecontactingUptake testing

Identifiers

PMID33468213
PMCPMC7814590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.