ArticleJCO precision oncology2023
Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of updated NCCN guidelines on clinical management and risk communication for CHEK2 p.I157T carriers in breast cancer.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Picking Up the Phone: Clinical Perspectives on Recontacting Patients and Their Families.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Review
- Impact of Updated NCCN Guidelines on Clinical Management and Risk Communication forResearch square · 2026Article
- Electronic Patient Portals as a Modality for Returning Reclassified Genetic Test Results.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Improving uptake of germline genetic testing amongst individuals at high-risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Unrecognised actionability for breast cancer risk variants identified in a national-level review of Australian familial cancer centres.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Article
- Variant reclassification and recontact research: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.