Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37012465›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2023

Exploring the impact of the reclassification of a hereditary cancer syndrome gene variant: emerging themes from a qualitative study.

Laura Wedd, Margaret Gleeson, Bettina Meiser, Rosie O'Shea, Kristine Barlow-Stewart, Amanda B Spurdle, Paul James, Jane Fleming, Cassandra Nichols, Rachel Austin and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

14 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Laura WeddSchool of Clinical Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Margaret GleesonHunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle, Australia.
Bettina MeiserSchool of Clinical Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. b.meiser@unsw.edu.au.
Rosie O'SheaFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kristine Barlow-StewartFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Amanda B SpurdleMolecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Paul JamesParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Jane FlemingFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Cassandra NicholsGenetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Rachel AustinGenetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Elisa CopsParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Melissa MonnikAdult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Judy DoSchool of Clinical Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Rajneesh KaurSchool of Clinical Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUGarvan Institute of Medical Research · AUHunter Genetics · AUKing Edward Memorial Hospital · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AURoyal Adelaide Hospital · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUSt Vincent's Clinic · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complexity of genetic variant interpretation means that a proportion of individuals who undergo genetic testing for a hereditary cancer syndrome will have their test result reclassified over time. Such a reclassification may involve a clinically significant upgrade or downgrade in pathogenicity, which may have significant implications for medical management. To date, few studies have examined the psychosocial impact of a reclassification in a hereditary cancer syndrome context. To address this gap, semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with eighteen individuals who had a BRCA1, BRCA2 or Lynch syndrome-related (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2) gene variant reclassified. The interviews were analysed utilising an inductive, qualitative approach and emergent themes were identified by thematic analysis. Variable levels of recall amongst participants were found. Common motivations for initial testing included a significant personal and/or family history of cancer and a desire to "find an answer". No individual whose uncertain result was upgraded reported negative psychosocial outcomes; most reported adapting to their reclassified result and appraised their genetic testing experience positively. However, individuals whose likely pathogenic/pathogenic results were downgraded reported feelings of anger, shock and sadness post reclassification, highlighting that additional psychosocial support may be required for some. Genetic counselling issues and recommendations for clinical practice are outlined.

Indexed as

BRCA1BRCA2Hereditary cancer syndromeLynch syndromePsychosocialVariant reclassification

Identifiers

PMID37012465
PMCPMC10272031
OpenAlexW4362522676

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.