ArticleFamilial cancer2024
Cascade genetic testing in hereditary cancer: exploring the boundaries of the Italian legal framework.
Article in Familial cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning about the genetic risk in my family: Preferences of Italian nurses.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- "Would you want to know?" Questions of utility and responsibility in Italian laypersons' preferences about genetic risk communication.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Clinicians' discretion to contact patients' at-risk relatives about their genetic risk: new guidance from Australia's privacy regulator provides timely clarification.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- BRCA cascade counselling and testing in Italy: current position and future directions.BMC cancer · 2025Observational
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite its clinical value, cascade genetic testing (CGT) in hereditary cancer syndromes remains underutilized for a number of reasons, including ineffective family communication of genetic risk information. Therefore, alternative strategies are being explored to improve CGT uptake rates; one such strategy is direct contact with at-risk relatives by healthcare professionals with proband consent. It is unclear how Italian laws and regulations pertaining to CGT-including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-should be understood and implemented in the context of such alternative strategies. The authors constructed a hypothetical case about CGT, reviewed laws and regulations on informed consent, privacy, and the right not to know, and analyzed how those laws and regulations might apply to different communicative strategies relevant to the case and aimed at supporting CGT. A constitutionally consistent reading of Italian law and of the GDPR, an integral part of the Italian privacy framework, suggests that multiple communicative approaches may be legally permissible in Italy to support the CGT process. This includes direct contact by healthcare professionals with proband consent, provided certain conditions are met. Understanding the effectiveness of such approaches in improving CGT uptake will require further research efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39565467What 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.