ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Using patient-reported outcomes from the PROCLAIM trial to assess the impact of universal germline genetic testing for prostate cancer patients.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough germline genetic testing can inform medical management for patients with prostate cancer (PCa), data are limited regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after germline genetic testing for PCa. Recall and comprehension of germline genetic testing results, uptake of post-test clinical recommendations, and psychological impact of germline genetic testing among patients with PCa were evaluated.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from the PROCLAIM trial. PROs were analyzed overall and by germline genetic testing results. Differences between groups were determined by two-tailed Fisher's exact test with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsAmong 494 patients with informative survey responses, 60% and 71% accurately recalled and interpreted their germline genetic testing results, respectively, with the highest rates among patients with negative results and the lowest among those with variant of uncertain significance-only (VUS) results. Among 42/55 (76%) patients with positive results for whom clinicians made germline genetic testing-informed recommendations, 39 (93%) completed or planned to complete >1 clinical recommendation. Conversely, no further recommendations were made for 160/221 (72%) and 211/218 (97%) patients with VUS and negative results, respectively. However, 57% (213/371) of these patients indicated that they or their family members intended to pursue clinical management strategies that were not recommended by their clinicians. Of the patients who responded to the survey, >90% of patients reported no post-germline genetic testing increase in their level of concern for themselves or their family members.
conclusiongermline genetic testing for patients with PCa did not cause appreciable psychological harm to the tested patients. Furthermore, patients with positive results had a high uptake of clinician-recommended management strategies. Of note, there were inconsistencies in the understanding of VUS results, with some clinicians making recommendations not warranted by personal/family history; conversely, some patients pursued management strategies not recommended by their clinicians. This suggests that educational efforts are needed in the communication of germline genetic testing results and clinical recommendations to 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.