ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025
Experience of urologists, oncologists and nurse practitioners with mainstream genetic testing in metastatic prostate cancer.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of metastatic prostate cancer patients with a mainstream genetic testing pathway.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Precision Care for Hereditary Urologic Cancers: Genetic Testing, Counseling, Surveillance, and Therapeutic Implications.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInternational guidelines recommend germline genetic testing for men with metastatic prostate cancer. If offered to all patients by genetic healthcare professionals, there will be insufficient capacity to cope with the high patient numbers. In a mainstreaming pathway, non-genetic healthcare professionals (ngHCPs) discuss and order germline genetic testing instead of referring patients to genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experience of ngHCPs with pre-test genetic counselling and to explore the feasibility from the ngHCPs' perspective.
methodsWe carried out a prospective cohort study in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. All participating ngHCPs (i.e. urologists, medical oncologists, specialist nurses and nurse practitioners) completed an online training module of 45 min. The ngHCPs completed a questionnaire both before the training and at three and nine months after it. Paired analyses were used to compare the first with the last questionnaires on attitude, confidence in the ability to discuss and order germline genetic testing, and perceived and actual knowledge of genetics and genetic testing.
results167 ngHCPs were invited to participate of whom 69 completed the first questionnaire and started or completed the last one. They had a positive attitude towards offering genetic testing themselves. After nine months of providing pre-test genetic counselling, significantly more ngHCPs considered mainstreaming helpful (94% after versus 81% before, p = 0.01). Both perceived and actual knowledge increased significantly. Pre-test genetic counselling took less than 10 minutes for 82% of ngHCPs and the majority (88%) were in favour of continuing the mainstream pathway. Only six participating ngHCPs considered mainstreaming possible without completing a training module beforehand.
conclusionsAfter completing a short online training module, ngHCPs feel well-prepared to discuss germline genetic testing with metastatic prostate cancer patients.
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.