Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37384863›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2023

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey.

Sukh Makhnoon, Elenita Davidson, Brian Shirts, Banu Arun, Sanjay Shete

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sukh MakhnoonPeter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-3380-3833
Elenita DavidsonDepartment of Behavioral Science, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TTX.
Brian ShirtsDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-6764
Banu ArunClinical Cancer Genetics, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Sanjay SheteDepartment of Epidemiology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-7622-376X
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USCancer Genetics (United States) · USSouthwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Multilevel investigation of uncertain and reclassified genomic variants in clinical oncologyR00CA256216 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI MAKHNOON, SUKH · 2022 to 2024
$693k
Multilevel investigation of uncertain and reclassified genomic variants in clinical oncologyK99CA256216 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI MAKHNOON, SUKH · 2021 to 2022
$216k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA256216NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R00 CA256216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOver a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.

resultsIn total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.

conclusionThese data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

Indexed as

CounselorsOncologistsClinical RelevanceDuty to RecontactHumansOncogenes

Identifiers

PMID37384863
PMCPMC10581618
OpenAlexW4382517910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.