SynthesisThe patient2026
A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Measures for Individuals Who Underwent Genetic Testing for Heritable Cancer.
Synthesis in The patient, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in genomic technologies have driven a substantial shift in cancer care, including early screening and targeted interventions for high-risk individuals who have not received a cancer diagnosis. Understanding patients' experience of care and their associated outcomes is essential to effectively delivering precision medicine. These outcomes are usually evaluated through patient-reported measures (PRMs), rather than administrative data.
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review of literature to identify, describe and qualitatively summarise the PRMs employed when individuals underwent genetic testing for heritable cancers. Risk of bias was not assessed as the emphasis was on description.
methodsSearch terms included cascade screening OR carrier screening OR genetic testing OR genetic counselling AND cancer AND patient-reported outcomes AND NOT Review (publication type). Reviews, meta-analyses and protocols were excluded.
resultsA total of 474 articles were identified using PubMed in May 2025, with studies only included where the outcome measure was reported by the patient, who was in receipt of a germline genetic test for heritable cancer. Following full-text review, 39 studies involving 16,523 participants were included for data extraction, with grouping undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. We identified 83 measures, with 30 of them being genetics-specific PRMs. These PRMs focussed on knowledge of genetics, perceptions, concerns, interest and acceptability. The majority of the included studies were conducted in the USA (61.5%) and included patients with breast cancer (n DISCUSSION: Given differences in legislative frameworks regarding the use of genetic information across countries, most included studies were conducted in countries where discrimination based on genetic features is illegal. It was also evident that studies on cancers other than breast are warranted and could inform standardised collection of key outcomes across the cancer spectrum. Likewise, there was an overrepresentation of studies including white, well-educated and employed participants. This review has identified, described and summarised what types of measures have been used when patients have undergone genetic testing for cancer and highlighted the urgent need for development of additional PRMs in this area, particularly in cancers other than breast.
fundingThis work was supported by funding from the Royal Hobart Hospital Research Foundation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41212395What 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.