ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Psychological distress following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A randomized study of 2 risk assessment models for individualized breast cancer risk estimation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Trial
- Psychological Impact ofClinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary management of advanced ovarian cancer in Spain: expert recommendations for achieving maximum survival and improving patient care.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Psychological distress and cancer worry in unaffected relatives undergoing cascade testing with multigene panel testing.Journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- A scalable new model of germline cancer genomic care delivery: Assessing psychological outcomes.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma in the Genomics Era: Current Applications, Challenges and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Case-Control Study for 23 Cancer Types With Functional Analysis ofJCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Germline Testing in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Analysis Comparing Strengths and Challenges of Different Approaches.Cancers · 2025Article
- Psychological distress following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in our understanding of the genetic landscape of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have led to the clinical adoption of multi-gene panel testing. Panel testing introduces new sources of genetic uncertainty secondary to the inclusion of moderate- and low-penetrance genes, as well as the increased likelihood of identifying a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). This cross-sectional study explored the post-test psychological functioning of women who underwent multi-gene panel testing for HBOC susceptibility genes. Two hundred and ninety-five women who underwent panel testing within the previous 2 years completed a study questionnaire to measure levels of cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress using the Impact of Events Scale (IES) and the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), respectively. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between genetic test results and levels of psychological distress captured by the IES and MICRA. In this cohort, a pathogenic variant (PV) was identified in 41 (14%) of participants, and 77 (26%) participants were found to have a VUS. In the multi-variate model, higher mean levels of genetic testing-related distress were observed in individuals with a PV (p < 0.001) or a VUS (p = 0.007) compared to those with a negative result. Furthermore, participants with a PV in a moderate-penetrance gene were found to have higher levels of genetic testing-related distress compared to those with a PV in a high-risk gene (p = 0.03). Overall, participants were highly satisfied with their genetic testing experience, with 92% of individuals reporting they would recommend testing to others. Our findings highlight differences in psychological outcomes based on both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance, which contribute to our understanding of the impact of panel testing and sources of both cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress secondary to testing.
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.