ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Experiences of metastatic prostate cancer patients with a mainstream genetic testing pathway.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mainstreaming genetic testing in community oncology settings.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Experiences of metastatic prostate cancer patients with a mainstream genetic testing pathway.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) are eligible for germline genetic testing. This study assessed the experiences of mPCa patients undergoing genetic testing after being counselled by non-genetic healthcare professionals (ngHCPs: urologists, oncologists, nurses). We assessed the psychosocial impact, decision-making difficulties and knowledge of genetics. In a prospective cohort study across 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, genetic testing was discussed and requested by ngHCPs. Patients completed questionnaires shortly after receiving pre-test genetic counselling and 4 weeks and 6 months after receiving their genetic test results. Anxiety, depression, distress, decisional conflict regarding genetic testing, decision regret and knowledge of genetics were assessed. Of 767 patients who received germline genetic testing, 5% to 8% experienced clinically significant anxiety or depression at some point in time. Although up to 49% of participants had significantly elevated distress scores as assessed with the Distress Thermometer, more than 90% stated that the testing process did not affect their feelings of distress. Patients with high educational levels had more favourable outcomes than patients with low educational levels on distress and decisional conflict (odds ratios 0.36 [0.23-0.57] and 0.44 [0.21-0.93], respectively). Furthermore, only 50% of the knowledge questions about genetics were answered correctly. To conclude, germline genetic testing within a mainstreaming pathway does not lead to increased levels of general anxiety or depression in most mPCa patients. However, the poorer outcomes on several psychosocial measures for patients with low educational levels are a point of concern.
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.