ArticleFamilial cancer2026
Cascade testing as the missing link in cancer prevention among Lynch syndrome families.
Article in Familial cancer, 2026. 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.
- Learning about the genetic risk in my family: Preferences of Italian nurses.Journal of community genetics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the uptake and timing of cascade testing in families with Lynch syndrome followed at a single Genetics Service in Northern Italy, with the aim of identifying family and individual factors that may influence uptake of testing in at-risk relatives. All living blood relatives aged ≥ 18 years and eligible for the first step of cascade testing were included. Forty-eight families were examined. Most probands were women (77.1%) mainly affected by endometrial (55.3%) or colorectal cancer (42.6%); the branch segregating the pathogenic variant was known/suspected in 51.1% of families. Overall, the cascade testing uptake was 19.5%. At the family level, uptake ranged from 0 in 47.9 to 100% in 4.2% of families. Binary logistic regression confirmed age and degree of kinship as significant predictors; younger relatives were more likely to undergo testing (OR = 0.97 per year, p < .001), while testing likelihood declined across kinship degrees (12-month testing: 27.7% first-degree, 10.4% second-degree, 5.7% more distant relatives; Log Rank p < .001) with Odds Ratios of 0.27 for second-degree and 0.07 for third-degree or beyond. Neither sex (p = .487) nor health status (p = .271) were significantly associated with uptake. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that uptake occurred mostly within the first 12 months after the proband’s result (86.7% of those tested), after which it plateaued. These real-world findings highlight substantial gaps in cascade testing implementation and provide evidence to guide future strategies aimed at increasing uptake and strengthening family communication of genetic risk in the Italian context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41886104What 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.