ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2022
Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system.
Article in Hereditary cancer in clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of primary care-based risk assessment and hereditary cancer genetic testing.BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- I am my Sister's Keeper: A Community-Engaged Research Project to Explore Perceptions of Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment among Black Women in the Mountain West.Research square · 2026Article
- Understanding risk perception and risk-reducing decision-making for surgery among individuals with a genetic predisposition to epithelial ovarian cancer.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Clinician Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
- A scalable new model of germline cancer genomic care delivery: Assessing psychological outcomes.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Considering Clinical Implementation of Polygenic Scores in Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment: Recipients' Perspectives on Influencing Factors and Strategies.The patient · 2025Article
- Patient-initiated lifestyle changes following receipt of genetic test results in a predominantly marginalized population.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Germline Pathogenic Variants and Genetic Counseling by Ancestry in Patients With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Access disparities and underutilization of germline genetic testing in Chilean breast cancer patients.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Prevalence and clinical implications of germline mutations among Jordanian patients with ovarian cancer. The Jordanian exploratory cancer genetics (Jo-ECAG) ovarian study.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2023Article
- Psychosocial factors impacting barriers and motivators to cancer genetic testing.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Understanding the Experience of Canadian Women Living with Ovarian Cancer through the Every Woman StudyCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Barriers, interventions, and recommendations: Improving the genetic testing landscape.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients.
methodsWe studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients. We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing.
resultsMost referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population.
conclusionsProcess improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.
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.