ArticleCancer medicine2025
'Why Don't We Get Counselling?': Comparing NICE Guidelines for Morphological and Genetic Cancer Risk Diagnoses.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the UK's National Health Service (NHS), there is specific psychosocial care offered to people with genetic cancer risk conditions but not morphological cancer risk conditions. As researchers develop new ways to diagnose morphological risk conditions, including precancers and in situ cancers, it is important to consider the psychosocial care that those diagnosed might require.
objectivesThis study compares the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's guidelines for BRCA1/2, which are genetic risk conditions, and Barrett's oesophagus (BO), a morphological risk condition. It then theorises reasons for the similarities and differences made visible by this comparative work.
methodsThe author completed an in-depth analysis of two sets of NICE guidelines, before carrying out a review of historical and social scientific literature on cancer risk to offer potential explanations for the disparities identified.
resultsThe 'right not to know' is protected in the case of BRCA1/2 diagnoses, but not BO. Additionally, specialist counselling is required for people receiving diagnoses of genetic risk but not offered for those diagnosed with morphological risk conditions. The paper offers four possible reasons for these disparities, concluding that they appear to be in large part due to historic genetic exceptionalism, rather than differences in patients' needs.
conclusionThere may be a need to consider offering further psychosocial care to people with morphological risk conditions like BO. Lessons might be learnt from the field of genetic counselling.
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.