Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38843377›Full record

ArticleCancer2024

What do cancer genetic providers want us to know about variant reclassification and recontact that we are not asking? A thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses.

Kerri Brown, Marisel Ponton, Elenita Davidson, Banu Arun, Robert J Volk, Sanjay Shete, Susan K Peterson, Sukh Makhnoon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Beyond the acceptance decision: integrating genetic findings into lifelong living donor care.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Kerri BrownPeter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Marisel PontonPeter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Elenita DavidsonDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Banu ArunClinical Cancer Genetics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5475-8509
Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8811-5854
Sanjay SheteDepartment of Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7622-376X
Susan K PetersonDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sukh MakhnoonPeter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3380-3833

Funding

UT Southwestern Medical Center Simmons Comprehensive Cancer CenterP30CA142543 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI MELANIE H. COBB · 2010 to 2026
$53.7M
Multilevel investigation of uncertain and reclassified genomic variants in clinical oncologyR00CA256216 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI MAKHNOON, SUKH · 2022 to 2024
$693k
Cancer Center Support Grant P30CA142543NCI NIH HHS 4R00CA256216NCI NIH HHS P30 CA142543NCI NIH HHS R00 CA256216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate variant classification and relaying reclassified results to patients is critical for hereditary cancer care delivery. Over a 5- to 10-year period, 6%-15% of variants undergo reclassification. As the frequency of reclassifications increases, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients becomes important but remains contentious.

methodsThe authors used inductive thematic analysis to analyze open-ended comments offered by oncologists and genetic counselors (GCs) from a large national survey.

resultsOf the 634 oncologists and cancer GCs, 126 (20%) offered substantive free-text comments. Four thematic areas emerged: 1) ambiguity over professional responsibility to recontact, 2) logistical challenges with recontact, 3) importance of inter-institutional communication, and 4) suggested solutions. Some oncologists felt that laboratories, not them, are responsible for recontact; others believed that ordering providers/GCs were responsible; GCs readily acknowledged their own responsibility in recontact but added important caveats. Besides the lack of up-to-date patient contact information, providers raised unique challenges with recontact: financial instability of laboratories, lack of clinical resources, contacting family members, and accumulating burden of reclassifications. There were numerous calls for developing practice guidelines on prioritizing variants for recontact and discussion on whether duty for recontact may be fulfilled via unidirectional, low touch modalities. Potential solutions to recontact including national databases and patient facing databases were discussed.

conclusionsThe authors confirm previous themes of stakeholder opinions and add previously unreported contextual details to qualify those themes. Clarifying provider responsibilities through professional guidelines for reclassification and recontact addressing the subthemes identified here will better serve all constituencies.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingNeoplasmsDuty to RecontactFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMaleOncologistsSurveys and Questionnairescancergenetic counseloroncologistopen‐ended itemsqualitativereclassificationsurvey

Identifiers

PMID38843377
PMCPMC11966614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.