Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33836815›Full record

ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2021

Impact of national guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of advice.

Bettina Meiser, Rajneesh Kaur, April Morrow, Michelle Peate, W K Tim Wong, Emily McPike, Elisa Cops, Cassandra Nichols, Rachel Austin, Miriam Fine and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Bettina Meiser *Psychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. b.meiser@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5086-0784
Rajneesh Kaur *Psychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
April MorrowPsychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Michelle PeatePsychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
W K Tim WongPsychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Emily McPikePsychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Elisa CopsParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Cassandra NicholsGenetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Rachel AustinGenetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Miriam FineAdult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide and School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Letitia ThruppParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Robyn WardUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Finlay MacraeDepartment of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Janet E HillerSwinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.
Alison H TrainerParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Gillian MitchellParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
ICCon Audit Study Collaborative Group
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AURoyal Adelaide Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Cancer Council NSW SRP 13-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis nationwide study assessed the impact of nationally agreed cancer genetics guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given by health professionals to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of such advice by patients.

methodsClinic files of 883 women who had initial proband screens for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants at 12 familial cancer clinics between July 2008-July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010-July 2011 and July 2012-July 2013 (both after guideline release) were audited to determine reason given for genetic testing. Separately, the clinic files of 599 female carriers without a personal history of breast/ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing and received their results pre- and post-guideline were audited to ascertain the risk management advice given by health professionals. Carriers included in this audit were invited to participate in a telephone interview to assess uptake of advice, and 329 agreed to participate.

resultsThere were no significant changes in the percentages of tested patients meeting at least one published indication for genetic testing - 79, 77 and 78% of files met criteria before guideline, and two-, and four-years post-guideline, respectively (χ = 0.25, p = 0.88). Rates of documentation of post-test risk management advice as per guidelines increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for 6/9 risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance amongst carriers or awareness post-release of guidelines were annual magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in women 30-50 years (97%) and annual mammography in women > 50 years (92%). Of women aged over 40 years, 41% had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Amongst women aged > 40 years, 75% had a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Amongst women who had not had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, only 6% took risk-reducing medication. Fear of side-effects was cited as the main reasons for not taking these medicines by 73% of women.

conclusionsGuidelines did not change the percentages of tested patients meeting genetic testing criteria but improved documentation of risk management advice by health professionals. Effective approaches to enhance compliance with guidelines are needed to improve risk management and quality of care.

Indexed as

BRCA1 and BRCA2Cancer riskComplianceGenetic testingGuidelines

Identifiers

PMID33836815
PMCPMC8035714
OpenAlexW3149122899

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.