Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36076240›Full record

ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2022

Mainstream genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer provides a solid basis for patients to make a well-informed decision about genetic testing.

Kyra Bokkers, Eveline M A Bleiker, Jacob P Hoogendam, Mary E Velthuizen, Henk W R Schreuder, Cornelis G Gerestein, Joost G Lange, Jacqueline A Louwers, Marco J Koudijs, Margreet G E M Ausems and 1 more

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Kyra BokkersDepartment of Genetics, Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Eveline M A BleikerDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacob P HoogendamDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mary E VelthuizenDepartment of Genetics, Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Henk W R SchreuderDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cornelis G GeresteinDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joost G LangeDepartment of Gynecology, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Jacqueline A LouwersDepartment of Gynecology, Diakonessenhuis, Bosboomstraat 1, 3582 KE, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marco J KoudijsDepartment of Genetics, Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Margreet G E M AusemsDepartment of Genetics, Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ronald P ZweemerDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. R.Zweemer@umcutrecht.nl.
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLMeander Medisch Centrum · NLOncode Institute · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing need for genetic testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Mainstream genetic testing provides an alternative care pathway in which non-genetic healthcare professionals offer pre-test counseling themselves. We aimed to explore the impact of mainstream genetic testing on patients' experiences, turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol.

methodsPatients receiving pre-test counseling at the gynecology departments between April 2018 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our intervention group. Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the genetics department between January 2017 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our control group. We evaluated patients' experiences with questionnaires, consisting of questions regarding knowledge, satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes. Patients in the intervention group were sent two questionnaires: one after pre-test counseling and one after receiving their DNA test result. Patients in our control group were sent one questionnaire after receiving their test result. In addition, we collected data regarding turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol.

resultsParticipation was 79% in our intervention group (105 out of 133 patients) and 60% in our control group (91 out of 152 patients). Knowledge regarding genetics, decisional conflict, depression, anxiety, and distress were comparable in the two groups. In the intervention group, the risk of breast cancer in patients carrying a pathogenic germline variant was discussed less often (49% versus 74% in control group, p ≤ 0.05), and the mean score of regret about the decision to have genetic testing was higher than in the control group (mean 12.9 in the intervention group versus 9.7 in the control group, p ≤ 0.05), although below the clinically relevant threshold of 25. A consent form for the DNA test and a checklist to assess family history were present for ≥ 95% of patients in the intervention group.

conclusionMainstream genetic testing is an acceptable approach to meet the increase in genetic testing among women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

Epithelial ovarian cancerGenetic counselingKnowledgeMainstream genetic testingPatients’ perspectivesPsychosocial outcomesSatisfactionTurnaround times

Identifiers

PMID36076240
PMCPMC9461259
OpenAlexW4294958370

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.