ArticleJCO precision oncology2025
Patient-Reported Outcomes From Males Regarding Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROGRESS Registry.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeProstate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) informs precision therapy, cancer screening, and hereditary cancer risk for patients and families. To support patient-centered PCA GT, studying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential.
methodsPROGRESS was a national patient-driven registry (January 2021-April 2022) for English-speaking males older than 18 years with previous/current PCA GT and Internet access. Surveys collected demographics, PCA history, family cancer history, mode of genetics care delivery, satisfaction with genetic counseling, decisional conflict, cancer genetics knowledge, and attitudes toward GT. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to estimate and draw inferences (α = .05) on strength of relationships between participant characteristics and PROs.
resultsAnalyses focused on 414 participants: White (88%), Black (3%), Asian (6%), and mixed/other (3%). Most participants were non-Hispanic (95.2%) and 46.9% had PCA. Genetic results were positive (pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants; mutations) in 27.9%. The three most common modes of genetics care were meeting with genetics professional (in-person or remotely; 30.9%), discussing with doctor (21.1%), and using website (20.8%). In covariate-adjusted models, satisfaction scores were highest with pretest counseling by phone (β = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.36) or discussion with doctor (β = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.38 to 2.12). Lower decisional conflict scores were reported for pretest counseling by phone (β = -3.76; 95% CI, -7.28 to -0.24). Males with mutations reported higher GT benefit scores (β = .30; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59) and importance of GT (β = .34; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61). Asian Americans reported lower GT satisfaction (β = -2.91; 95% CI, -4.34 to -1.48) and higher decisional conflict (β = 8.93; 95% CI, 4.36 to 13.51).
conclusionPROGRESS Registry informs the first comprehensive report of PROs among males undergoing PCA GT, providing insights into opportunities to improve patient experience and leverage the benefit of GT.
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.