ArticleThe patient2025
Considering Clinical Implementation of Polygenic Scores in Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment: Recipients' Perspectives on Influencing Factors and Strategies.
Article in The patient, 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.
- From polygenic risk to functional genomics: a framework for precision gynecological disease modeling.Nature communications · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolygenic scores (PGS) capture a proportion of the genomic liability for cancer in unselected and high-risk cohorts, with meaningful application in improving risk-stratified screening and management. However, there are significant evidence gaps regarding future clinical implementation. Despite being key interest-holders, recipient views are underrepresented. The objective of this study was to explore recipients' views on the clinical implementation of PGS for hereditary cancer risk assessment in Australian cancer genetics clinics.
methodsThree video-conferenced focus groups were conducted with recipients who had been given their breast and ovarian cancer PGS through the PRiMo trial. Nominal Group Technique was used to enable evaluation of implementation determinants and strategies, and priority setting. Descriptive and deductive content analyses were conducted utilising the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation of facilitative strategies.
resultsParticipants (N = 10) were female, with an average age of 36 years (range 18-70 years). Of these, 50% (N = 5) experienced a change in their hereditary cancer risk assessment due to their PGS. Participants prioritised the positive value and impact of PGS, and the behavioural characteristics of recipients, notably their knowledge and expectations of PGS and cancer genetics clinics, as major determinants of implementation success. Implementation strategies that prepared and supported recipients to access, engage, and use PGS were emphasised, with a focus on a clear results report, educational resources, in-clinic resources, and delivery of ongoing good clinical follow-up.
conclusionEvidence-based strategies should be deployed to address recipients' priority barriers to the clinical implementation of PGS for hereditary cancer risk assessment. Centralising recipient voices in implementation design will improve effectiveness and success.
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.