Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418215›Full record

ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2022

Reflex BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer: streamlined for clinicians but what do patients think?

Jeanna M McCuaig, Sarah E Ferguson, Danielle Vicus, Karen Ott, Tracy L Stockley, Raymond H Kim, Kelly A Metcalfe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Psychological Impact ofClinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jeanna M McCuaigUniversity Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, M5G 2M9, Canada. Jeanna.McCuaig@uhn.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0262-4226
Sarah E FergusonUniversity Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Danielle VicusDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, 123 Edward Street, Toronto, M5G 1E2, Canada.
Karen OttSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre- Odette Cancer Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Tracy L StockleyUniversity Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Raymond H KimUniversity Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Kelly A MetcalfeLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Toronto, M5T 1P8, Canada.
University Health Network · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAOntario Institute for Cancer Research · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReflex (automatic) BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic testing of tumour tissue is being completed for all newly diagnosed high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) in the province of Ontario, Canada. The objective of this study was to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing among individuals with a new diagnosis of HGSOC.

methodsParticipants had a new diagnosis of HGSOC and received reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing as a component of their care. Eligible individuals were recruited from two oncology centres in Toronto, Canada. One week after disclosure of tumour genetic test results, consenting participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that measured cancer-related distress, dispositional optimism, knowledge of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, recall of tumour genetic test results, satisfaction, and the psychological impact of receiving tumour genetic test results. The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire was used to measure the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing.

results76 individuals completed the study survey; 13 said they did not receive their tumour test results. Of the remaining 63 participants, the average MICRA score was 26.8 (SD = 16.3). Higher total MICRA scores were seen among those with children (p = 0.02), who received treatment with primary surgery (p = 0.02), and had higher reported cancer-related distress (p < 0.001). Higher dispositional optimism (p < 0.001) and increasing age (p = 0.03) were associated with lower total MICRA scores. Most (83.5%) participants reported being satisfied/highly satisfied with having tumour testing completed; however, 40.8% could not accurately recall their tumor test results.

conclusionsThis study is the first to assess psychological outcomes following reflex BRCA1/2 tumour genetic testing in women newly diagnosed with HGSOC. Increased dispositional optimism provided a protective effect, while increased cancer-related distress increased the psychological impact of tumour genetic testing. Educational resources are needed to help increase patient understanding and recall of tumour results, particularly when tumour genetic testing includes analysis of genes that may have implications for hereditary cancer risk. Additional research is required to better understand the patient experience of reflex tumour genetic testing.

Indexed as

BRCAGenetic counsellingGenetic testingHereditaryOvarian cancerPsychological distressSomatic testing

Identifiers

PMID35418215
PMCPMC9006521
OpenAlexW4223888919

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.