Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37005005›Full record

ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2023

Universal genetic testing for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the context of multidisciplinary team care.

Dilanka L De Silva, Lesley Stafford, Anita R Skandarajah, Michelle Sinclair, Lisa Devereux, Kirsten Hogg, Maira Kentwell, Allan Park, Luxi Lal, Magnus Zethoven and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Recent advances in non-pharmacological interventions for symptom burden management in breast cancer patients treated with ovarian function suppression.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Quality of life, anxiety and cancer worry following hereditary cancer testing: a 6-month Swedish follow-up study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Screening guidelines for individuals at increased risk for prostate cancer.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Review
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Dilanka L De SilvaThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Lesley StaffordThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Anita R SkandarajahThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Michelle SinclairRoyal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
Lisa DevereuxThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Kirsten HoggThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Maira KentwellThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Allan ParkThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
Luxi LalThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
Magnus ZethovenPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC.
Madawa W JayawardanaThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Fiona ChanThe Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Phyllis N ButowCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision Making, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Paul A JamesThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
G Bruce MannThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Ian G CampbellThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Geoffrey J LindemanThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.ORCID 0000-0001-9386-2416
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the feasibility of universal genetic testing of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, to estimate the incidence of pathogenic gene variants and their impact on patient management, and to evaluate patient and clinician acceptance of universal testing. DESIGN, SETTING,

participantsProspective study of women with invasive or high grade in situ breast cancer and unknown germline status discussed at the Parkville Breast Service (Melbourne) multidisciplinary team meeting. Women were recruited to the pilot (12 June 2020 - 22 March 2021) and expansion phases (17 October 2021 - 8 November 2022) of the Mutational Assessment of newly diagnosed breast cancer using Germline and tumour genomICs (MAGIC) study.

main outcome measuresGermline testing by DNA sequencing, filtered for nineteen hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes that could be classified as actionable; only pathogenic variants were reported. Surveys before and after genetic testing assessed pilot phase participants' perceptions of genetic testing, and psychological distress and cancer-specific worry. A separate survey assessed clinicians' views on universal testing.

resultsPathogenic germline variants were identified in 31 of 474 expanded study phase participants (6.5%), including 28 of 429 women with invasive breast cancer (6.5%). Eighteen of the 31 did not meet current genetic testing eligibility guidelines (probability of a germline pathogenic variant ≥ 10%, based on CanRisk, or Manchester score ≥ 15). Clinical management was changed for 24 of 31 women after identification of a pathogenic variant. Including 68 further women who underwent genetic testing outside the study, 44 of 542 women carried pathogenic variants (8.1%). Acceptance of universal testing was high among both patients (90 of 103, 87%) and clinicians; no decision regret or adverse impact on psychological distress or cancer-specific worry were reported.

conclusionUniversal genetic testing following the diagnosis of breast cancer detects clinically significant germline pathogenic variants that might otherwise be missed because of testing guidelines. Routine testing and reporting of pathogenic variants is feasible and acceptable for both patients and clinicians.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansPatient Care TeamProspective StudiesBreast neoplasmsCancerCancer genesGenetic counsellingGenetic testingPathology, molecularSequence analysis

Identifiers

PMID37005005
PMCPMC10952347
OpenAlexW4362507506

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.