ArticleGenetics in medicine open2025
Pilot implementation study of a default genetic referral process for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging the implementation gap in hereditary cancer care for prostate cancer: a narrative review and Japanese environmental scan.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed under age 50 is increasing at alarming rates, with >75% of early-onset cases occurring in patients between 40 and 49 years old. Germline genetic risk evaluations are key to delivering high-quality care to these patients. Methods: We conducted a single-arm pilot implementation study of a default genetic referral process for patients diagnosed with CRC between ages 40 and 49 at 5 hospitals in an academic health system. A research coordinator notified patients and their oncologists of their eligibility for a default genetic referral, after which all patients who did not opt out were referred for genetic counseling, testing, and result disclosure as per usual care. The primary outcome was the genetic referral rate; secondary outcomes included the percentage of eligible patients who were scheduled for a genetic evaluation, completed genetic counseling, and underwent testing within 3 months of the initial referral. We conducted semistructured exit interviews with a subset of patients and oncologists to elicit feedback on the intervention. Results: We included 53 patients, of whom 49 (92%) were referred to genetics, 38 (72%) were scheduled, 22 (42%) completed genetic counseling, and 13 (25%) underwent testing within 3 months of the initial referral. In exit interviews ( Conclusion: A default genetic referral process is acceptable, feasible, and associated with a high referral rate for patients with early-onset CRC; however, subsequent scheduling, evaluation, and testing rates remain suboptimal.
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.